August 12, 2004
The question cuts to the core of free inquiry, it seems to me.
Ahead of an anticipated sexual harrasssment lawsuit from a former male subordinate, the anti-gay-marriage Governor of New Jersey, James E. McGreevy, has resigned from office.
The married-with-kids Democrat was not only reportedly facing a (same-sex) harrassment suit, but also acknowledged having had a sexual relationship with a man.
According to the MSNBC story linked above, he said he feared his sexuality and his violation of matrimonial bonds left his office vulnerable.
That remark seems a barely-coded reference to gay marriage activists who - had he stayed in office and rode out the suit, certainly an option - presumably would have tarred him as a hypocritical closeted gay against gay marriage for political reasons.
Yet a hugely discordant note is McGreevy's claim that "I am removing the threats by telling you about my sexuality." Huh? If he truly felt the threat was removed, then why resign? Simply because of committing adultery? Hard to believe in this post-Clinton era.
McGreevy, who signed a state domestic partnership law for same-sex couples, now becomes a willing victim of the pro-gay-marriage political McCarthy-ites, the same folk who've derived glee from the online campaign to "out" gay Republican staffers on Capitol Hill.
What rational individual could buy into the retrograde view that opposition to gay marriage betrays either hypocrisy (if you're gay), or bigotry (if you're straight).
If this is in fact what's going on, McGreevy should not have bowed to the gay marriage activists who would have used that club against him. The fact that he was a closeted gay, and an adulterer, does not mean his opposition to gay marriage could not have stood - and in fact did not stand - on firm principle.
Apparently, McGreevy lacked the fortitude to rebut the arguement. Or is he really admitting his stance against gay marriage was just a political ploy to help him stay in office? In that case, maybe New Jersey really needs a gay Libertarian for governor.
Perhaps instead, his resignation is an early exit strategy because there's even worse stuff coming out, that might tie him more closely than before to a developing corruption scandal in his office.
I almost hope so, because so far, this doesn't quite add up.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at August 12, 2004 02:41 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.rosenblog.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/481
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Can A Gay Politician Still Oppose Gay Marriage?:
» teen rape from
violent femmes domestic violence rape video prison rape domestic violence gay rape [Read More]
Tracked on August 21, 2005 01:03 AM
Actually, I think McGreevy was wrong. Two wives. How many children? I think he's bi, not gay. (And the second wife married AFTER he met his latest male partner)
He's not resigning because of being gay. He's resigning because of the law suit and corruption. I mean he tried to give this a top government job he was nowhere near qualified for. And because of that he is right to resign.
The shame is he ISN'T resigning because he's gay. And it's important that the issue isnt framed that way. Personally, I think he's being pretty weaselly about the whole thing playing it off like he's retiring because he had to come out of the closet. Please.