Unfortunately, things developed as I anticipated for Mets second baseman Daniel Murphy after his response to a reporter’s question of potentially having a gay teammate.
The topic arose when GM Sandy Alderson invited former major leaguer Billy Bean to address the Mets on inclusion. Bean admitted after his career he was gay.
As a reporter, I welcome it when a player gives an honest, well reasoned answer to a question, which is what Murphy did when asked about Bean.
What, Alderson didn’t think his players wouldn’t be asked?
“I disagree with his lifestyle,’’ Murphy told reporters. “I do disagree with the fact that Billy is a homosexual. That doesn’t mean I can’t still invest in him and get to know him. I don’t think the fact that someone is a homosexual should completely shut the door on investing in them in a relational aspect.
“Getting to know him. That, I would say, you can still accept them, but I do disagree with the lifestyle, 100 percent.
“Maybe, as a Christian … we haven’t been as articulate enough in describing what our actual stance is on homosexuality. We love the people. We disagree [with] the lifestyle. That’s the way I would describe it for me.’’
What is so wrong about that answer? It was the best possible response. Murphy expressed his beliefs, which is his right as much as it was Bean’s right to state his. Most importantly, Murphy said he would accept a gay teammate simply because he was a teammate.
Isn’t that what acceptance is all about?
This was part of a major league directive. What is the intent? Is it beneficial to introduce a potentially divisive issue into the clubhouse?
A baseball team is comprised of players, but they are also human beings. Each having their own beliefs, opinions and follow their own moral compass.
Bean said what he believed and Murphy did the same, which is the ultimate display of free-flowing ideas.
However, Murphy’s thoughts have been criticized, which unfortunately is what one expects in this era of political correctness.
ON DECK: Zack Wheeler talks smack … sort of.