OC NFL Kicker Kluwe Defends Gay Marriage, Free Speech

Vikings kicker Chris Kluwe of Los Alamitos made headlines for a letter chastising a Maryland state delegate who reportedly attempted to quiet a Baltimore Ravens player for his support of gay marriage.

Orange County native and Minnesota Vikings kicker Chris Kluwe is proving his words are as powerful as his leg.

The former Los Alamitos Griffin is making headlines this week for a sharply-worded letter sent to a Maryland delegate in defense of gay marriage and free speech.

Kluwe stepped into the furor created last week when Maryland state delegate Emmett C. Burns Jr. sent a letter to the owner of the Baltimore Ravens, urging the team to “inhibit" the expressions of Ravens linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo who publicly favors gay marriage, according to the website Deadspin.com

In response, Kluwe wrote a scathing letter to the delegate.

While much of the letter contains colorful language, Kluwe sums up his position in the first paragraph quoted by Deadspin:

Dear Emmett C. Burns Jr.,

I find it inconceivable that you are an elected official of Maryland's state government. Your vitriolic hatred and bigotry make me ashamed and disgusted to think that you are in any way responsible for shaping policy at any level. The views you espouse neglect to consider several fundamental key points, which I will outline in great detail (you may want to hire an intern to help you with the longer words):

Kluwe goes on to chastise Burns regarding the first Amendment:

As I suspect you have not read the Constitution, I would like to remind you that the very first, the VERY FIRST Amendment in this founding document deals with the freedom of speech, particularly the abridgment of said freedom. By using your position as an elected official (when referring to your constituents so as to implicitly threaten the Ravens organization) to state that the Ravens should 'inhibit such expressions from your employees,' more specifically Brendon Ayanbadejo, not only are you clearly violating the First Amendment, you also come across as a narcissistic…stain.”

Kluwe closes with:

P.S. I've also been vocal as hell about the issue of gay marriage so you can take your "I know of no other NFL player who has done what Mr. Ayanbadejo is doing" and shove it in your close-minded, totally lacking in empathy piehole and choke on it.

Click here to read Deadspin’s story containing the full text of the letter.

Kluwe’s letter is earning him cheers on a facebook page for his alma mater, Los Alamitos High School. What do you think of his letter?

Richard Shean September 09, 2012 at 02:25 PM
Get a Kluwe, your 1st Amendment rights are not more than anyone elses. Kicking footballs doesn't make you an intellectual.
andrew hurley September 09, 2012 at 03:21 PM
Way to stand up for all people. Go Bruins!
Nancy Godfrey September 09, 2012 at 05:19 PM
Larry Jackson September 09, 2012 at 05:24 PM
Free speech is guaranteed by the Constitution. Gay marriage is not. It's a case of apples and oranges. Marriage has always been defined by biology - a conjugal, procreative union between persons of the opposite sex, and no mere legislative act is going to make it the same thing as a relationship of any kind between persons of the same sex. The people have spoken time and time again on the issue, but politicians and judges for whatever reason continue to try to undo what the people and nature have done. Opposing gay marriage does not make you homophobic. It makes you a traditionalist who believes in adhering to the natural order of things. Other than the potential to procreate together and to make love in a heterosexual way, the benefits of marriage do not need to be restricted to heterosexual unions. Homosexual partnerships should be extended the same rights and benefits as are granted to heterosexual ones. It's just not the same thing, and laws attempting to change the definition of something that is clearly contrary to the way it has been properly defined by nature are inherently invalid. No hate here - just common sense.
Larry Jackson September 09, 2012 at 05:25 PM
Oh, and yeah! Go Bruins!
fact checker September 09, 2012 at 05:38 PM
The issue is not procreation. The issue is the rights afforded to spouses.
Bill Koelzer September 09, 2012 at 06:14 PM
Hooray for Klume. What a great letter from a citizen who noticed that the Constitution offers freedom for ALL people, not just the ones that Burns hates. Why does Burns care if people whom HE doesn't know want to marry? Will they in doing so harm HIM? I can never understand why some people think that other people's behavior is fair fodder for their bigoted or racist attacks.
Barry Wood September 09, 2012 at 07:42 PM
If you follow that line of thought then marriage should be denied to individuals who are infertile and women who have gone through menopause. "You've had a vasectomy? Sorry, no marriage license for you."
Jake Elwood September 10, 2012 at 03:31 AM
Wonder if he'll stand up for the SECOND amendment?
John B. Greet September 10, 2012 at 04:06 AM
Larry, I kind of thought we had gotten past the whole "separate but equal" mentality decades ago. The sort of "logic" you have employed here is the very same that caused some to once believe that it was ok to make blacks drink from different drinking fountains (hey, they still got to drink, right?) and to sit in the back of the bus (hey, they still got where they were going, right?) "Homosexual partnerships should be extended the same rights and benefits as are granted to heterosexual ones." They just can't *call themselves* married. (Hey, they still get all the rights and benefits, right?) No church or faith system has a monopoly on the term "marriage", otherwise straights who are wedded in purely civil ceremonies would not be able to call themselves "married." True? Likewise, no civil government has a monopoly on the term "marriage", otherwise no couple wedded in a chuch could call *themselves* "married", right? Why does the idea that LGBT folks might call themselves "married" seem so very threatening to you? How does their doing so in any way diminish the solemn nature of any straight couple's marriage? Put simply, it doesn't. The plain truth is that every year, thousands and thousands of straights manage to undermine the solemn nature of their marriages all on their own and without any assistance whatsoever from LGBT folks. Don't they?
met00 September 10, 2012 at 04:22 AM
Hmm, a member of Congress attempts to use his position in government to contact the owner of a NFL organization to tell an employee of that organization to limit their free speech. And you think the guy who blasts him for failing to understand that the First Amendment states that the government (not some random individual) can't use it's power to deny freedom of speech is in the wrong? Richard, please tell me that you are also the same teaparty person who holds up the "keep your government hands off my Medicare" sign.
MFriedrich September 10, 2012 at 04:41 AM
"Free speech is guaranteed by the Constitution. Gay marriage is not." LOL. Famous last words much? I have to laugh. It's like nobody recognizes today just how closely such arguments resemble those that supported things like miscegenation laws, which existed in several US states, not just southern states, for decades - all of which were emphatically struck down by the US Supreme Court in 1967 in an appropriately named law case called Loving vs. Virginia. A few years from now gays will be allowed to marry in the US, and people will be wondering why did anyone spend so much energy preventing something so trivial? And with that, another so called Judeo-Christian traditional "value" will be thrown onto the scrap heap of history, right next to slavery, the stoning of women lacking an intact hymen, the morbid and unhealthy preoccupation with sex, genocide, the Catholic doctrine of limbo, faith healing, creationism and "intelligent design". P.S. For what it's worth, Jesus Christ actually DISCOURAGED marriage. "They which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage." Luke 20:35 Well, look on the bright side. You'll always have Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 to keep the homophobia nice and fresh to share with your kids.
met00 September 10, 2012 at 06:34 AM
Wow Larry. Thanks for telling me that "marriage has always been defined by biology." Let me see if I can clarify something. The State decided to use the term "marriage" as a contractual relationship between two adults over the age of consent. Why "over the age of consent"? Because you must be over the age of consent to legally enter into a binding contract. Now this contract comes with explicit and implicit rights and responsibilities. It provides certain State recognized guarantees and unless modified by a prenuptial agreement, specific remedies of settlement if the contract is broken by the involved parties. In CA there is no legal reason why two consenting adults of the same gender or gender identity should be denied the basic rights to enter into this contract and gain the benefits afforded to them by the State. Please note, I am not saying that religious institutions that use the same word must perform their respective ceremonies and rites. They have the right to define what "marriage" is to them in ways that differ from those of the State. But the State doesn't have the right to say that there is one set of rules for differing gender couples and another set of rules for those that are either the same gender or same gender identity. As long as the State refers to that as a "license and certificate of confidential marriage", which is what mine says, it MUST provide it to any two people over the age of consent who wish to have one.
met00 September 10, 2012 at 06:51 AM
Sure. When you join the regulated militia, then you can have your weapon.
met00 September 10, 2012 at 06:56 AM
Actually, his point was that as a member of the government, and using that title in telling an employer to muzzle his employee, Burns actively violated the First Amendment. Minor detail that a right-wing nutcase like Burns most likely still won't understand even after it has been pointed out that he violated the document he swore to uphold and protect. But neanderthals who thump their bibles like Burns generally don't really support anything but their Christian Taliban State. I wonder how Burns would do on this quiz... http://revemilycheath.com/2012/08/31/how-to-determine-if-your-religious-liberty-is-at-threat-in-just-ten-quick-questions/
met00 September 10, 2012 at 07:03 AM
While I find it sad that they no longer teach civics in high school, I can see that forcing the kids to have to attend at least on city council meeting may have been a good thing. And while I found his language a bit "over the top", I am pleased to see such a vigorous defense of not only the First Amendment (and using it correctly, not like when people whine that some TV station won't let someone they want on the air, and how in doing that the station is violating the First Amendment [they aren't; they are NOT a part of the government]), but also of civil rights. Congrats to the author, and to those who taught him history and government at LAHS. You should all be proud.
Suzi Evans September 11, 2012 at 07:21 PM
I know many gay couples whose marriages, whether legal or not, are more respectful, caring and meaningful than many hetero marriages. The right to have legal unions, rights for partners and insurance coverage.....does that somehow threaten your values? Does that take anything away from YOUR marriage? Gay people should be afforded the right to love, honor and cherish the same as any other couple in love. Don't be so freakin' paranoid. They're not trying to take anything away from us STRAIGHT people.
Larry Jackson September 13, 2012 at 11:40 PM
Wow! I didn't realize that, not only was I a homophobe, I was a racist and an advocate of stoning women in the streets. Thank you all for making me realize what a horrible person I am. My point was only that we should not equate things that are not the same. To do so is self-delusional. "Hetero" means different, and that's what heterosexual marriage is - different from any other sort of relationship. Let people who are in a traditional marriage keep that unique designation - don't steal its identity to apply it to something different. Meanwhile, don't deprive persons who have solemnly committed to a homosexual union of any of the rights or benefits that pertain to married persons. Semantics is important. There is a difference, and our laws should acknowledge that.
John B. Greet September 13, 2012 at 11:57 PM
"Larry, I kind of thought we had gotten past the whole "separate but equal" mentality decades ago." (9:06 pm on Sunday, September 9, 2012)
MFriedrich September 14, 2012 at 01:23 AM
Larry, you said "Semantics is important. There is a difference, and our laws should acknowledge that." I don't understand why semantics is so important on this question. "Married" is simply an adjective and stems from the noun "marriage". Why can't the word "married" be used to describe two men who have sworn vows to one another and commit to support and love one another, etc.? Also, how are the semantics of the expression "homesexual marriage" hurtful or harmful in any way to society including heterosexuals and single people? Please explain. Thanks.
John B. Greet September 14, 2012 at 01:47 AM
"My point was only that we should not equate things that are not the same. To do so is self-delusional." Of course there are differences between gay married couples and straight married couples, but the difference has nothing to do with their marriages. Each are married because they have chosen to: A: Engage in the civil contract of marriage in the eyes of the State; B: Have their unions solemnized by an officiant of their particular religious faith system; or C: Both. If it is your contention that the primary purpose for marriage is procreation, then straight couples who cannot procreate for whatever reason should likewise not be called married, correct? If it is your contention that marriage is the sole purview of the church, then you have to be specific as to which church and then you have to amend our Constitution to stipluate that we are no longer a Constitutional Republic but, rather, a Theocracy. Sorry, Larry, every single argument I have ever heard against allowing gays to "marry" and be called "married" fails even the simplest tests of logic. In truth, folks who argue against gay marriage are simply arguing preference, not principle. Where our society's laws are involved, however, the only principles that *must*, in all cases, apply are those of due process and equal protection. To deny gay folks the right to marry (and to be *called* married) is a blatant denial of their right to both due process and equal protection.
David F. Manns September 17, 2012 at 03:36 AM
The "Natural" order of things... people are gay. That is the natural order. When did you decide you were heterosexual? Remember that day? No. Because you were always Hetero. Now I remember when I realized not everyone was not like me... but I was never not gay. I never decided, "hum... girls are nice and everything, but guys have plumbing I like better." Nope. So We are the same. It is just that NOT as many people are Homosexual as Heterosexual. Not as many people have Blue eyes, or Blonde Hair. So should they not be allow to marry? Why not? What about albino people, I think they look strange, so nope no marriage for them. Who are you to decide what the "natural order" is. Clearly people who have sex with the opposite sex stand a much higher chance of passing on their genes. So it would be clear why people who have same sex on the mind would not have been the dominate genes in the pool. Think of the things we have kept because it was tradition... arranged marriages. It was tradition once to sell your children into slavery, or whore them out. The natural order: Fighting for your stuff when a clan of younger stronger men come to take it from you. THAT IS THE NATURE OF THINGS. We decided, that as a society we would have laws, and enforce them. This is a for most of the impulses people have to steal and harm others. So what harm is having to people who love one another afforded the same rights as two other people who love one another?
David F. Manns September 17, 2012 at 03:59 AM
Larry your right. We should remove marriage from the wording of the law. ALL LAW. The state has no right to babel on about any religion institution. I support the TRADITIONAL DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE: A Male and many Females. From a Traditional point of view this has thousands of years and much more biblical (a traditional book) backing than this one and one crap. Oh wait that is NOT what you want, so it is pick and choose, like the shellfish think in Jewish law... or pork. All traditions we have done away with... why because Sea bugs are good eats, and bacon is wonderful. So you are a Traditionalist, but just some things, maybe only for a few 100 years or so, or just like thinks when you were a kid? Is any of this moving into the gray matter? Just because something was a way, doesn't mean it is right. Just because you cannot understand (or fathom) how anyone could not like a woman's body for sex, or how anyone could like a mans body in a sexual way, doesn't afford you the right to impose your views or "definition" on anyone else. So we are going to have to say marriage, or we need to remove it from the law, or say this Contract affords all rights and privileges afforded to others by under the term marriage. Which I am sure the Traditional Marriage people would say you are redefining a word. YES WE ARE... like extending the idea that all MEN includes blacks, women Ect. All Men are created equal. Don't see you crying about that tradition? (but know some do.)
D. Wayne Crane September 17, 2012 at 05:57 AM
Tex Watson who personally killed most of the victims in the Tate-LaBianca murders (Charles Mason gang) has been married twice and has fathered several children all while in prison.......... Domestic violence (most commonly between husband and wife) is the #1 reason for Police intervention in most major precincts........... Finally, statistically, speaking, the majority of marriages now end in divorce. Is it possible that the people fighting so rabidly against gay marriage are really only concerned about looking foolish compared to the marriages of committed gay couples? Or, do heterosexuals simply want to left alone until they've finished destroying the institution of (traditional) marriage?
Joyce Malson October 16, 2012 at 10:45 PM
Chris Kluwe is my hero. I listened to his interview last night & he is completely open & honest with no hidden agendas. We need to have more people in the spotlight stand up for human rights.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something