The Challenge to Understand Some People

| | Comments (2)

TRENTON, New Jersey Once publicly opposed to gay marriage, former New Jersey Governor James E. McGreevey now says he spoke out against the idea as a way to keep his homosexuality hidden. “I did not want to be identified as being gay, and it was the safe place to be,” McGreevey said Tuesday in an interview with The Associated Press. “I wanted to embrace the antagonist. I wanted to be against it. That’s the absurdity.” [...]

Aside from his hiring of Cipel, McGreevey’s admission about his position on gay marriage appears to be the most glaring example of his then-covert sexual identity affecting his political decision-making.

“I was proud to be against gay marriage because that’s where I thought a majority of New Jerseyans were,” McGreevey said. “That’s successful politics.”

In the AP interview, the former governor said he now supports same-sex unions. (source)

Actually, I saw the interview with McGreevey on Oprah. He stated that he now fully supports gay marriage and nothing less, not even civil unions. I suppose that since it’s now known that he is gay, he really has nothing to lose anymore. So why not go all out for something that he now wants for himself, since he is now involved with a man he is interested in marrying?

McGreevey states, “I was proud to be against gay marriage because that’s where I thought a majority of New Jerseyans were. That’s successful politics.”

That’s a lie. McGreevey was proud to be against gay marriage because by endorsing marriage equality for gay couples, he was afraid that people would put two and two together and come up with four. He stated exactly that on Oprah.

The whole thing is testing my tolerance for people who care nothing for other people other than themselves. I can forgive people for past misdeeds. But what McGreevey did actually hurt people, using the power of his office to do so. I don’t know if you can just dismiss that by saying, “...I was an oppressed homosexual... I hated myself.... I didn’t think that the life is was living was ‘Godly’ (his word)...”. He went on to say that if he hadn’t been under threat of blackmail from some fling that he hired to be on his staff, he probably never would have had the courage to come out.

These are things he said in the interview. It made me sick to watch it. I can understand what the closet can do to people. That’s why I left it when I could. But never once did I inflict harm on others to hide what I am. This is the difference between people like me and McGreevey. I’m sure I disappointed people when they found out I was gay. I certainly lost friends and I suffered physical abuse because of it. But I’m the one who has had to deal with all the issues with being gay, not them. And I did, and now I’m in a much better place for it.

Perhaps that is what McGreevey is trying to get too. But listening to him talk about how he was putting gays down for being a threat to marriage, all the while thinking to himself (he said) that he should be among the gays knowing that he was one.... well, I turned the damn TV off. It was too much for me. It only goes to show you that, gay or straight, a politician these days would sell their own mother for a few votes.

Shameless. I don’t forgive McGreevey for what he did while in office, but I do hope that he comes to a place of peace in his life. And ironically, if his state of New Jersey rules that gay couples can marry, a ruling that is expected in the near future, the governor who was so against gays being able to marry, just might be able to get married himself.

And another opinion....

Where we stand: New Jerseyans should remember that it was the former governor's terrible appointments and mountain of scandals that drove him from office, not his homosexuality.

When James E. McGreevey was elected governor of New Jersey in 2001, he promised to end "business as usual" in Trenton. He said he'd clean up state government and make it more ethical.

In that task, our former governor failed miserably and completely. His administration was so scandal-plagued and devoid of ethical standards that by the time McGreevey left office less than three years into his four-year term, he had given new meaning to the term "business as usual."

And that's something no New Jerseyan should forget as McGreevey makes the talk show rounds to promote his new book, The Confession.

Yes, it was shocking when McGreevey famously admitted during his resignation speech that he was a "gay American."

Scandals

But that surprising confession wasn't the true reason why McGreevey left office in disgrace. He quit because the scandals involving him and those close to him were at an apex and his ability to govern, even with a state Senate and Assembly controlled by his party, had been compromised and was probably beyond repair. (source)

2 Comments

Bill said:

You are right about politicians doing what they MUST do to stay in office. This is why I would make a lousy politician. In most cases, that would be a desirable thing I suppose. After all, the politician would simply declare that he was "representing" his constituents in doing "their will" by voting the way he/she votes. In the case of gay marriage, it's easy for a candidate to vote against it because he/she knows it won't come back to haunt him in an election race.

Even judges are coming under this kind of attack...

OLYMPIA, Wash. (BP)--Conservatives trying to oust two Washington state Supreme Court justices who voted in the minority to legalize "gay marriage" had mixed results Sept. 19, with one justice being re-elected and another justice being forced to a runoff.

In June the court voted 5-4 against legalizing "gay marriage," dealing a significant blow to homosexual activists. While conservatives celebrated the legal victory, they also set out to defeat the justices who voted in the minority. (source)

A few in the populace are now doing everything they can to get rid of the judges on the Supreme Court in Washington State who I suppose they now consider to be "activist judges", because they voted for allowing gay couples to marry. I think the lesson to be learned here (regardless of the issue) is that civil liberties for law abiding, tax paying citizens should never be put to a popular vote. As Thomas Jefferson stated, "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Webster defines unalienable as "incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred".

Do we actually believe those words? Because we don't act like we do.

For all the negative things I've said about Joe Lieberman, I have to give him this point on the War in Iraq - he's been consistent and still defends his decision to support the President. And he's so dedicated to his Democratic Party (sarcasm) that when his party voted him out, he declared that he would run as an Independent, or should I say dependent, as in having a dependency for power? Of course on all other issues, Joe votes on which way the wind of politics happens to be blowing that day. He is a true politician. Like all others, he will vote the way he must to be re-elected. In a passionate issue such as the war, it may have caught up with him.

Dave - "So whose fault is it really that we end up with liars in positions of power?"

It's our fault. All of us. The great majority of our voting mass are hypocrites when we come to such social issues as gay marriage, school integration, military integration, and Don't Ask, Don't Tell. All of these issues went through the same process.

People like the idea that we are all to have these "unalienable" rights, except for a group they don't like, be it blacks, gays, or women. And when the U.S. Constitution says, "NO NO NO! You can't single out specific groups for the denial of rights!". Our answer: We need a Constitutional Amendment saying that we can!

Once you make that leap, anything goes.

Dave said:

I dunno - I agree that what he did (fighting gay rights while being gay himself) was evil. Then again, politicians MUST lie to succeed. It's funny that we claim to value honesty, but demand lies. How many atheist members of congress are there? Answer=NONE. True answer? Probably at least several dozen. How many members of congress want to kill social security? Answer=NONE. True answer? Probably at least several dozen. You can't get elected in this country if you admit to these things.

The honest ones we weed out. So whose fault is it really that we end up with liars in positions of power?

Colorado elects a new governor in November. The Republican candidate can be honest - he hates gays and doesn't give a damn about our vote. The Democrat dances all around the issue. Why? Because he doesn't hate us, but is not about to say we are human either. None of that equal rights stuff from him ... he can clearly come out AGAINST gay marriage - that's safe territory, but he'd rather avoid the whole issue because he wants our votes. So I am again faced with the lesser of two evils. While the Republican is truly evil, not just on gay rights, but a host of issues (environment, Iraq, immigration) the democrat is not exactly someone I would care to vote for. I rarely ever do this, but I may not vote for the Democrat. If it looks close, I may have to. Otherwise I'll just vote on other issues and maybe go Green party for gov.

Leave a comment

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Bill published on September 20, 2006 7:10 AM.

A bit of history from the 1950's was the previous entry in this blog.

Practice in Macro Photography is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Our Blogroll

Powered by Movable Type 4.01
Enhanced with Snapshots