When Baltimore Ravens linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo spoke out in favor of a Maryland ballot initiative that would legalize gay marriage, state delegate Emmett C. Burns Jr. wrote to Ayanbadejo’s boss, Ravens owner Steve Bisciotti, urging him to “inhibit such expressions from your employee.”
“Many of my constituents and your football supporters are appalled and aghast that a member of the Ravens Football Team would step into this controversial divide and try to sway public opinion one way or the other,” Burns wrote on Aug. 29, 2012. “Many of your fans are opposed to such a view and feel it has no place in a sport that is strictly for pride, entertainment and excitement.”
Ayanbadejo today made his first public comments since the Burns sent the letter.
“I was surprised. Just what our country was founded on, for someone to try to take that away from me, I was pretty surprised that something like that would come up, especially from a politician,” Ayanbadejo said.
But Ayanbadejo’s response was quite mild compared to the response of Minnesota Vikings punter Chris Kluwe, in the form of a letter to Burns published this afternoon on DeadSpin.com
[EXCLUSIVE: Kluwe will be on The Ed Show tonight at 8pET on msnbc!].
The letter is filled with insults and obscenities, a lot of kick as you might expect from a punter. Here’s how the letter opens, along with some of the cleaner excerpts:
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 then accuses Burns of attempting to violate the First Amendment’s freedom of speech provision to the U.S. Constitution:
What on earth would possess you to be so mind-boggingly stupid? It baffles me that a man such as yourself, a man who relies on that same First Amendment to pursue your own religious studies without fear of persecution from the state, could somehow justify stifling another person’s right to speech. To call that hypocritical would be to do a disservice to the word.
On Burns’ comment that Ayanbedejo’s view on marriage-equality “has no place in a sport that is strictly for pride, entertainment, and excitement,” Kluwe wrote:









