Why is McGreevy's marriage a sham?

while Clinton's, Barr's, Ginrich's, and several other adulter's aren't.

The simple fact that McGreevy is gay doesn't necessarily make his marriage a sham, any more than the fact Clinton is a horn dog makes his marriage a sham. The simple fact is, that I, and a great many gay men and women my age, could well have been in McGreevy's boat. The fact we aren't has as much to do with the grace of God as it does with anything we did. I don't pretend to know what was in his heart when he married those women or what those women knew or didn't know. No one here knows that. But I do know a double standard when I see it. Either people who cheat are in sham marriages or they aren't. The gender of the homewrecker shouldn't matter. The fact it does speaks volumes.

Whatever he and his wife have going on in their house is their business.

I do object to him putting his unqualified lover on the state payroll for $100K a year in a job that he never got security clearance for. And I object to that the fact that he was introduced to this man by his top campaign donor who is currently under federal investigation.

. . . I consider it a tragedy beyond comprehension for that @sshole and his @sshole wife to bring a child into this world simply to serve as a prop for his campaign in 2001.

Words can't even begin to describe the crime they have perpetrated on that innocent child.

I'll bet anything she was not aware he was gay when she married him?

. . . I should hope that she knew about it herself.

I don't know if you live in New Jersey, but for those of us who have lived here for years the homosexuality angle to this story was so old that today's press conference was a dull event.

Many were surprised. I live in the area -- and in a very gay-friendly town across the bridge from NJ, btw -- and this is the first I heard it. My husband and I both were surprised.

. . . was one of the worst-kept secrets in this state for a long time. The irony is that nobody ever talked about it publicly -- until HE HIMSELF made it the focal point of his resignation speech.

Because they ...nevermind.

She knew.

I'm not about to psychoanalyze those two. It's not my place to figure out what was going on in that marriage.

But as someone who considers New Jersey a second home in some ways, I'm bothered by the fraud perpetrated on the taxpayers.

was just a campaign prop and it is wrong of you to make that judgment.

Gays make arrangements with straights regarding birthing children so that the gays can have a family.

What these folks did in their private life is their business and their private life and it is not your place to know, let alone judge.

. . . being discerning.

The first time I raised this issue back in his 2001 campaign, nobody even believed me when I suggested he was gay. Since I was right on that one, I see no reason why I'm wrong on Point #2 (his use of this child as a campaign prop).

For what it's worth, much of this goes back to the odd circumstances under which his first marriage ended.

You make it sound like he didn't and you don't know that for certain, thus you have made a judgment. You have no idea if he and his second wife have discussed his sexual preferences and their mutual desire for children and reached an agreement to live together as husband and wife and mother and father, despite his sexual preferences.

For you to make the broad statements you have made is judgmental. To base your judgment on the premise that you were correct in 2001 is not only judgmental, but it is pompous and smug. (imho)

. . . today, as well as how I was looking at it back in 2001.

My concern really has nothing to do with what he and/or his wife are thinking today, and what they were thinking back then.

The real problem is that the "gay man married with a child" scenario, coupled with well-founded stories about his background as well as his questionable (to say the least) ethics in public office, led me to ask some very serious questions about the man's mental stability.

Trust me on this one -- most of us won't be prepared for what's coming out over the next few weeks.

wanted was a child as a "prop," as you put it? That's a very drastic assumption.

. . . to Merh.

is not for us to judge.

I can understand why you might be upset at his putting a lover on the payroll, but personal relationships...that's just off limits, as far as I am concerned.

. . . the sad truth is that it isn't.

I'll leave it at that, but if you're interested in learning the details you can come to New Jersey and start asking around about the FIRST wife and child who went through this.

But many posts have been in the vein of "How could he do that to his wife and kids?" News flash Clinton did the same thing to his wife and kids. That is my point.

And I still don't understand why Hillary is still married to him. I do think Clinton is pretty much a scumbag in his personal life and can never admire him as a person because of that. I thought he was a good president though.

McGreevey is/was a corrupt governor on top of being a scumbag in his personal life.

campaign contributer or any other person that lacks credentials is not new in politics and it is not illegal. If the lover took the job and did nothing, if he never reported to work but collected a pay check and McGreevey covered that up, then that is illegal. That is a theft of public funds.

But to hire a lover or friend to a job is not nepotism and it is not illegal. It may be a matter of poor judgment, but it is not illegal.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2206370

. . . related to law enforcement and post-9/11 security, and that person can't even obtain the security clearances necessary for him to do his job, you bet your @ss this is a problem.

It isn't just "poor judgement," either. In fact, the recklessness of this kind of thing is almost as astonishing as your ability to completely pass it off as harmless.

credentials? What they do in their private lifes is irrelevant unless they were misusing their offices. If the fellow never showed up for work or if he never tried to do his job, just took the title and the paycheck, then I would agree with your corruption concepts.

The local sheriff here appointed a male buddy of his that is a close friend and political buddy to be the head of the law enforcement academy. He has no law enforcement training, he never attended a law enforcement acedemy, he is not a certified law enforcement officer, yet he is responsible for the training of the cadets. He and the sheriff attend seminars and conferences together. The guy is also over the efforts to computerize the law enforcement computers (terrorism related) in the region and he is getting federal funds to do it. This guy was a PR man in the air force and has no computer and/or law enforcement credentials. Is it illegal, no. Is it corrupt, not in the legal sense of the word. It is ethical, not in my judgment, but I don't believe political cronieism is right. However, this is how it works in politics. Folks want to put people they know in office, not total strangers.

Please provide me links so that I can read about this guy and his lack of credentials.

If there are other issues that will come out about the gov and his behavior while in office, well then he should be judged on those once they come out. Not on inneundos and rumors, but facts. Not on the fact that he hired a friend, because everyone does that. You will find nothing written in the law anywhere that says a governor must appoint only qualified people with proper credentials to a job.

As a foreign national, Golan Cipel couldn't even obtain the security clearances necessary for him to sit in on high-level security meetings with the FBI, New Jersey State Police, Department of Defense (and what later became the Department of Homeland Security), Federal Aviation Administration, etc.

I've done quite a bit of work related to the post-9/11 activity in New York and northern New Jersey, and I wasn't even permitted to attend some of the meetings of these groups because I hadn't gone through the required background checks.

http://www.thnt.com/thnt/story/0,21282,602598,00.html


He was an Israeli citizen, serving in the Israeli Navy Reserves, appointed to the highest security position in the state. He was unable to receive security clearance because of his nationality.

political crony. And this article was from 2002 and you guys are still beating him over the head for it?

for a major government job.

You may think that's OK, but I don't. I think corruption in government is bad, no matter which party partakes.

The sad thing about folks here is that they have no clue as to how government actually works. Think of it as a business you are running, you want people around you that you like and that you can work with and that will do what you want them to do, that they are loyal to you and share your views.

If the folks help you get the business off the ground, then you offer them a job in your company.

You don't necessarily hire an outsider that doesn't share your views because that can be harmful to your efforts.

In politics, you have to be more concerned about outsiders, so that the other party doesn't get folks in your office to mess you over.

Is it perfect, no. Is it illegal, no.

In the gov's case, it sure sounds like poor judgment, but it does not sound like it was illegal.

there's a very legitimate question about whether it was illegal. There is a law requiring background checks and security clearance for certain high-level appointees. He resigned before the legal question could be resolved.

Nonetheless, even if it was not illegal, it is supremely stupid to hire your secret lover for the senior security position in your state while he is a member of a foreign armed-service.

. . . that's when the subject of the article was removed from his position -- you know, the position for which he didn't even meet the most basic requirement.

And nobody is "beating him over the head for it" -- it's relevant to this discussion because the very same guy from the 2002 article is filing a sexual harassment lawsuit against McGreevey, and was the subject of McGreevey's admission today about a homosexual relationship.

The guy that he hired in 2002 resigned in 2002 because he was not qualified. And now, the guy is sueing him for sexual harassment even though he was given the job, but had to resign because he was not qualified. Is that about right?

This has nothing to do with his sexual orientation, except that it would become a matter of public record because of the suit.

Definitely provide a link once the complaint is published, I have to read that one to see how the lawyers carefully crafted that lawsuit.

You have a Paula Jones on your hands.

Political cronyism is a fact of political life. If the guy sat at home and ate bonbons and never tried to do his job and never showed up, then you would have a crime, theft of public funds.

The gov's sexual preferences only come into play because it will become a matter of public record now that this guy filed his suit.

as you so colloquially call it, is in fact irrelevant. The fact that he hired his secret lover for a high-level government job is relevant. Wait until you see the lawsuit before you dismiss it.

And even if he was straight and monogamous, the other scandals surrounding him would indicate he's a scumbag. Do you know about his chief fundraiser who is under indictment for witness tampering by trying to secure prostitutes he could photograph with them?

Do you know about his OTHER myriad scandals?

Now nobody enjoys a good corrupt politician as much as I do, but when they get caught, they have to go.

The topic of this thread "was his marriage a sham". Sounds to me like this is Clintons admin only with the gay twist. Wasn't Dick Morris a corrupt scum bag that had to resign.

It certainly sounds alot like Jeb shrub and his lover and all of the corruption in Fla.

All that aside, it has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.
What he and wife have agreed to is their business and his kids may not be the political props that others have judged them to be.

whose life was deeply affected by infidelity, I reserve the right to not respect people who engage in such actions.

I have also consistently said here today that he should not resign because of it. There are myriad better reasons why he should resign.

that his wife was not aware of his life style. If she was, then it is between him and her and the judgment is not appropriate.

Hiring a foreign national to be your security director in charge of the state's anti-terror efforts is the equivalent of hiring Stevie Wonder as a driver to deliver pizza for you.

As I do not know what his qualifications are regarding his occupations in Israel, I do know that Israel has some of the most rigid and effective anti-terrorism forces in the world. They are used as consultants in and by the USofA all the time.

Foreign nationals are used all the time by our government as consultants and experts.

Now if you said he was a Taliban or Saudi, then I might raise an eyebrow.

who was unable to receive ANY security clearance is the best choice for a job?

Don't you think that maybe... just maybe... the feds may want to share confidential information with such a person?

appointed by a democratic governnor and the repukes run the DOJ and the agencies that give the clearance?

How naive are you? If it was a repuke gov that had appointed an Israeli to the post you can bet your bottom dollar that the guy would have been given the necessary clearance.

The repukes use or misuse their offices for political purposes. If they can mess with a democratic governor and his appointees, they will do it.

Is the fact that he has a (D) next to his name evidence that he's a pure soul being oppressed?

Honestly, tell me: if he was a Republican, would you be defending him this vigorously?

chances are if the Israel was given a job by a repuke gov, he would have been given the clearance and their would have been all sorts of news releases out there that the repuke gov was taking terrorism serious by looking to hire someone from a country with the most effective and stringent anti-terrorists forces in the world. Even if the guy was just a peddler on the streets while in Israel.

Also, you should know that Israels are required to serve in the military. They do have a much more serious approach to their military, national security and service to their country.

I don't know if he had been a repuke would I be defending him.
I know that because he is a human, I am now. I don't even know him and I don't live in or near NJ.

whether the federal government would've given clearance to an Israeli (note the spelling) citizen based on whether the Governor was a Democrat or a Republican, please consider the WISDOM of appointing a foreign national to such a sensitive security role.

If McGreevy wasn't fucking Cipel, do you think he'd get the job?

my spelling errors. You would think we were on FR. Just for the record, I am a terrible speller and I always forget to use the spell check. I am on dial up and the delay can be tremendous.

I see no security concerns and there are foreign nationals serving in very classified, sensitive posts in our government as we speak.

If McGreevey wasn't f'n the guy, he might have been appointed to the post. They could be skiing buddies or golfing buddies or drinking buddies, just like it happens every day.

See, the gay thing is the issue with you.

It wasn't a single typo. You repeatedly misspelled the word. I'm not so petty as to point out a single typo, but when one substitutes a noun repeatedly for an adjective, I question whether they really know what they're talking (or typing) about.

I do see a security issue in having foreign nationals appointed to high-level security positions. In fact, so many people see such an issue that it's inscribed in law.

The "gay thing" with me is a simple slur. I would feel the same way if Cipel was a woman. It is wrong for politicians to appoint their secret lovers to high-paying positions regardless of sex. How's that?

I'm gay as a daisy, and if you put me in charge of a state, I would not hire my sexual partners into senior positions.

typos, since you continue to respond. I have never claimed to be perfect and my inaccurate grammar and/or spelling are not a sign of stupidity and/or unintelligence. Why do you think writers hire proof readers and editors?

You're attempts to discredit me by pointing out my mistakes demonstrates that you are not too sure of yourself and in order to feel superior to me, you must point out my shortcomings.

I am human, not a great typist, my grammar is not perfect, but I am not stupid, ignorant or unintelligent.

As to your status, good for you, happy for you. My question is, are you angry that he took so long to come out of the closet or that his coming out of the closet may overshadow the alleged scandals of his office?

Please provide me with the law regarding foreign nationals or a link to it.

a corrupt lying politician is using his homosexuality as a shield against the legitimate attacks he's facing.

I do not have access to the law in question, but I have previously linked in this thread to an article referring to the fact that he could not get a security clearance that was required by state law.

Do you think it's a mere coincidence that the best person for the job happened to be the guy the governor was fucking?

his coming out in an attempt to deflect from the scandals of his administration. That is understandable.

Just because the paper says something is "required by law" doesn't really mean it is. The media is not always accurate. If during this saga they reference the law and/or publish the law suit, would you be so kind as to pmail the link to me.

I think the lawyers that filed or will be filing the lawsuit must be very creative.

Thanks for your candor and the discourse.

I have ever worked. On the other hand, maybe this Israeli guy did work the security stuff in the military. They are so well-known for that kind of stuff

never pretended to be gay.This is a straight woman and a gay man. Totally different scenario. It is bad whatever the situation. Either she knew and perpetuated a falsehood or she didn't and was used.

A straight man can be truly in love with his wife and sexually attracted to her, but still cheat on her. It's wrong, but it happens every day.

A gay man married to a woman, while able to have strong feelings for her, is incapable of forming a true marriage with her.

on edit; As theboss says above, the issue is the corruption McGreevey engaged in, not the adultery.

Unless you are of the belief that to be gay makes attraction to women utterly impossibe in all cases, that is totally absurd. In addition different people have different definitions of marriage. You have no idea what his wives expected from him in that regard.

He could also be bisexual, leaning towards men.

he said he was gay.

About four hours?

I don't believe in binary sexuality, and there are plenty of gay men I've known who came out after getting married because they didn't KNOW they were gay.

You're wrong to judge him over his outness, you've not walked a mile in his shoes.

He should not resign because he's gay. He should resign because he's a corrupt liar.

He shouldn't lose his job for lying and being adulterous, but he certainly has lost my respect.

My reaction to his marriage is that he's a scumbag. Clear enough?

not in this particular case.

But I know other people in that situation who have felt powerfully betrayed. Odds are his wife isn't "OK" with it.

was totally in the dark. Presumedly marriage number one broke up for some version of this reason and she would have done some due dilligence here. Would you marry a divorcee without first ascertaining why the person was a divorcee?

It's her fault because she didn't do due diligence? She should have known why his first marriage broke up? As if HE WOULD BE HONEST WITH HER? There is no reason to believe this guy is honest with anyone.

does she live in a cave? I wouldn't date or marry a man who broke up from a long term relationship without speaking to the man from whom he broke up.

I can assure you that women don't do that and none of my gay friends ever did it either. I think that is total nonsense.

I am not saying you take what they say as gospel but you do find out. Incidently, this woman shared a step child with the first wife so they had to have spoken. And, yes, if the first wife said "I left him because he is gay", it should have been a wake up call.

a man would never lie about the reasons for his divorce.

that is why I am suggesting SPEAKING TO THE EX WIFE. Then you have to decide who to believe. Did you even read my post?

I don't.

again you have failed to read my posts. But even is she didn't know, I fail to see why this is a bigger betrayal than sleeping with other women (Clinton) or sleeping with other women and then getting a divorce (the rest of who I mentioned).

I just disagree with them. There's no need to presume ignorance on my part when simple disagreement explains the gap.

that is directly opposed to what I said. That isn't disagreement, that is either ignorance or deception.

with her is based on a lie. He is not what he claims to be.He is not a heterosexual male. He said he is Gay. Clinton was a cheat but he didn't claim to be a different person. He didn't start by saying he was Gay!

I have an ex and he has a 2nd wife who is the step mother of my sons and I have talked to her exactly once in 10 years. I certainly never told her about why he and I were divorced and she never asked. She wouldn't have believed me anyway. 2nd wives do not believe the word of 1st wives. They believe that the first wife was whatever horrible thing the guy tells them she was.

realize there are two sides to every story (actually three). Again, I wouldn't expect for her to take the first wife's account as gospel but I would think getting it would be a good idea.

He's a scumbag in his marriage, a corrupt politician in his public life.

I don't know where you got the idea that people excused Clinton for similar behavior. The difference is that Clinton didn't put Monica Lewinsky on the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Clinton was defended at every turn by most Democrats over the cheating. Republicans who deplored his behaviour were accused of "Clinton cock-sniffing."

Yet the self-same Democrats (including you) are ready to fall all over McGreevey for being a "scumbag in his marriage." It's a double-standard.

You can argue all you want over whether it is a double standard. However, when it comes down to it they've both really hurt the democratic party, Clinton worse. However, the difference is that Clinton wasn't going anywhere. He was the president and the leader of the party and there was going to be no ousting. They defended him because they had to. This man is a gov. who has very little political power on the national level. However, he just made himself one of the most famous gay men in America. Not exactly the face you want for gay America is it? If he didn't go it would give the rep. right even more ammo on the gay marriage issue than he has already given him. He has got to go, he did the right thing for the party. Him staying around is the last thing the party or GLBT rights needs right now.

since you didn't know me at the time - or in fact, you didn't know ANYBODY here on DU - you're just pulling facts out of thin air.

I did not defend Clinton's cheating - in fact I strongly condemned it. I also do not know of ANY Democrat who defended it. Not one. Zero. Zip. Nada.

That does not mean we were not opposed to the impeachment, though.

dsc is saying exactly what I am thinking too.

All this criticism of how he's dragged his wife and kids through hell would be a lot more credible if the same people had made the same statements about Clinton's family. Of course, if I started a thread focusing on Clinton's indiscretions and made similar comments, I'd get thrown out.

when a man cheats on his wife it is humiliating and awful for her but it is very common so it might not be as humiliating and awful - but I think to add in that the cheating was with another man I have to think the stigma is worse and that it makes it more difficult - I'm not saying this is right - but basically unless the wife is aware of the situation from the start it has to be crushing to be cheated on and to find out your husband is homosexual...note McGreavey didn't say he was bi-sexual so basically he completely dismissed his wife - unless as I said she was aware of all this from the get go.

I have to give Mrs. McGreevey credit she is one strong woman to have been standing by his side during the announcement....just as I think any woman would have to be pretty damn strong to stand by her husband when she finds out she has been cheated on - my reaction would be a little different!!!

and a liberal. While I totally undertsand why many gays have married heterosexuals I still dont find this excusable. I know I will get a lot of angry posts for this. I think that gay people shouldnt make an adulterer out to be their hero and standard. I am glad he took a stand and apologized to his wife and family and supporters, unlike clinton who had to be forced out. I guess I am in the minority of liberals that does think adultery is wrong. If my partner ever cheated on me he would be out the door in a heartbeat. He cheated on the guy he was with before me so it at first was hard for me to even trust him. That being said, I don't think he should be forced to resign. It is his personal family life and no one elses. I however, would not vote for him in a re-election because he was a hypocrite, opposing gay marriage for those who were out proud and fighting for rights...meanwhile he got to have his cake and eat it too. You wont hear me singing his praises as I am already seeing many gay people and liberals doing. Think about the hell his children and wife will now go through.

I am just depressed by all the moralistic "tut tut tut" coming from heterosexual Clinton defenders over his "cheating and harm to his family."

As for his choices, the man is almost 50 and comes from a different generation. Outness wasn't an option for people in that age bracket.

Keep in mind that even gay icons like Steve Gunderson and Barney Frank were outed by others in their careers and lived closeted existences up to that point. McGreevey made some poor choices, his decision to appoint his lover was a bad one, but all the "tut tuts" over his marriage-related issues strike me as hypocritical in the light of Clinton's own persistent dalliances.

he's four years older than me. I came out at 18. I was also raised Catholic and grew up about 70 miles from McGreevey.

who is also economically advantaged.

For most gay men in his generation, outness was not an option.

I'm not defending closetedness, but for someone else to criticize him simply because they're out is insensitive to the realities of the 1970s.

You're making some pretty big assumptions.

My father was a school teacher. He raised four kids, supported a wife and his mother-in-law. His father was a coal miner.

We never went hungry, but we sure weren't "advantaged". McGreevey went to Columbia and Georgetown. Everyone in my family went to state colleges.

McGreevy's career may have required closetedness, as did the careers of a majority of men from that generation. There were no anti-discrimination laws back then, and being openly gay was a political non-starter, which is why Barney Frank and Steve Gunderson were also closeted.

requires closetedness. It is a choice.

I can't think of ANY post I've ever made that indicated I came from an economically advantaged background. My mother never finished fifth grade. Dad was the first in his family to go to college, and he did so on the GI bill.

We had four kids - every one of us had paper routes at 13 and fast-food jobs at 16. I worked as a bartender, waiter and furniture mover all through college, and all my siblings worked multiple jobs, too.

I had the superior advantage of good parents who made us work hard.

at Biarritz!

Biff and Mimsy agree that it's declasse.

That's it, I want a divorce! :P

Granpapa was so busy mining coal that he neglected his investments. My OTHER grandfather was a brewmeister, and well... as you can imagine, wasn't sober enough to tend carefully to the family fortune.

People like you and me are lucky to work in careers where our sexual orientations are a non-issue. Lots of people work in environments where it IS an issue.

Someone in New Jersey, in conservative law circles, in the 1970s, might have encountered discrimination. McGreevey, who was a prosecutor, might have been denied a licence by the bar to practise PROSECUTION LAW simply because he was gay and thus "morally unfit."

Now I'm not as well-off as you are -- I don't drive a Jaguar -- but I am still lucky to be in an environment where my sexual orientation cannot be legally used against me. McGreevey's orientation could have not only been used against him, but denied him a career in law altogether.

your timing is off. He was born in 1957. Presumably he didn't graduate from law school until the mid-80s.

I simply disagree that he was FORCED to remain closeted. New Jersey is not a particularly conservative place, and he was always free to move across the river into NY.

I bought my Jaguar a good 20 years after coming out the closet in 1979. I find it funny you still remember that thread from a loooong time ago. I also find it funny that you just assumed I was raised well-off and made all sorts of assumptions about me and my background based on one isolated fact. You were, of course, entirely wrong, which is always a danger when one makes wild-ass assumptions based on next-to-nothing.

I can with confidence say that he probably would not have come out on his own volition at age 18, no matter how he was brought up or what he chose to do for a living.

Gays my age MIGHT have come out in their twenties or thirties, given some support and the right circumstances. When I was around twenty, at a fairly open university, it was still a bit of a risk for gays to come out. (Those were the Anita whats-her-face days--the orange juice lady.) There was one gay bar in town and another that accepted gays and lesbians, but the latter was a bit grungy. ( I hate to think of the amount of time I spent there...but then, I'm getting old.)

Given McGreevey's ambitions, etc., I can understand why he may have done what he did.

A friend of mine had a brother who would have been around 55 now. He was married for awhile, and in his younger days he was a "young Republican." He went to school with Chimpy at Harvard. I'm trying to remember at what age he came out; I think it was in his forties.

So Dookus, I think you were lucky (or brave or smart or whatever). Age and circumstance matter a lot, but especially age. When I think about the gay men and lesbians a generation older than mine, WOW. Such a difference.

to meet a few gay men and women who have been out for upwards of 50 or 60 years. They're a real inspiration.

for any evidence that McGreevy's desire for cock could've been used against him legally.

And an apology for your blatantly wrong assertions wouldn't be remiss.

The military does. Until very recently, the Lawerence decision, teaching in the South did as well (we had to sign morals clauses which prohibited us from violating sodomy laws).

a teacher or in the military. He CHOSE to remain in the closet. You can respect that choice if you want - I do not.

he may well have been under the same type of morals clause in Jersey. Even Massachusetts still had a sodomy law in 2002 when Lawerence was handed down, and many states had them in the early 1980's before Hardwick was handed down. If Jersey did, then technically, he was forced to be closeted to get a law licence. Presumedly, it wasn't enforced in a general way but it would have existed.

why not demonstrate that he was forced to sign a morals clause in New Jersey in the 1980's instead of just assuming it?

You can't just make stuff up to defend your argument.

that he wasn't forced to be in the closet. I have no idea, I just stated a resonable theory as to how he could have been forced to be in the closet. Last I checked it was up to those asserting a theory (he wasn't forced to be in the closet by his career) to prove their theory. Have the rules of discourse here changed or do you have a special set of them that apply only to you?

I claim NOBODY is "forced" to be in the closet. It is a choice. It is always a choice, albeit often a difficult one.

Furthermore, you're claiming he was "forced" in a liberal Northeastern state at a time when many gay people in all professions were coming out in record numbers.

You made up the possibility that he had to sign a morals clause. Provide some evidence for that, or I'll just consider it bullshit.

who the fuck cares about the woman who might have thought she was marrying some one for love.

Think about it.

him the right to destroy other peoples lives!

He's no hero for being forced out of the closet by a law suit.

Though, like I said numerous times, his sexuality is not the issue here.

Ask Barney Frank -- another closeted man who'd still be closeted today had he not been outed in the 1980s.

Frank would still be closeted.

But McGreevey began his career in the '80s. Harvey Milk was already out.

You are correct that it is EASIER for a gay politician to stay closeted, but it is not a requirement.

I find it very odd you're DEFENDING the closet.

And out lawyers were denied certification by state bars as prosecutors under the claim that they were "immoral."

I'm not defending the closet in the slightest, just saying that you didn't understand his circumstances and are judging him from a privileged position.

in me. It was difficult, but ultimately worthwhile to come out.

NOTHING compelled him to stay in the closet - he chose to do it. If this mythical "conservative New Jersey prosecutorial system" was so restrictive, he had every opportunity to move elsewhere or choose a different line of work.

he was reelected as one. That is a big difference especially in a district like his. As it was he came close to losing a primary in 1988, the first year he ran as a gay man.

If I lived in NJ, I'd be livid that he put his buddy on the payroll, but I'm really sick and tired of people's making leadership decisions based on who is diddling whom--regardless of sexual orientation.

This is going to be a media feeding frenzy based on the sexual component alone. It's exasperating.

I don't think anyone on the left defended Clinton's affair with Lewinsky. I think Clinton was pretty despicable for that. The defense was based on the fact it was not an impeachable offense.

If Clinton had appointed Monica as Secretary of the Navy, I would have been at the White House with a pitchfork.

Maybe not on the East Coast, but there is not as much of a stigma on the West Coast regarding gayness....Washington State had gay politicians and it was no big deal..

this post in memory of Sen. Cal Anderson, who fought for the rights of all...

He never should have married her(unless of course she knew) In that case no apolgy to her is necessary. The child , I'm sure will be devastated. In this day and age, marriages of convenience are dumb.I fel for the kids involved. Against gay mariage and a Catholic too? what a hypocrite.

Catholicism teaches that you have to fight your base urges to become good Catholics. Supposedly you should never think or do sex acts before you marry and after that have sex with only one partner for the rest of your life. Other than that you should fight your nature every step of the way. With this type of thinking, I could see where a gay person could think he could marry and not lapse into giving in to his urges. Usually, most of us figure this out by the time we are fifteen years old, that sex is a really strong urge and that you are going to have lapses. My two cents. In the case of gays, most realize that this is whom they are and they enter the gay community accordingly.

and Bring it on Home to Me?"

n/t

In my book, he's lower than dirt for that. "Not any worse than Gingrich" is not a good way to be.

but more than a few here are purporting that cheating with a woman is somehow better than doing so with a man. I find that a bizarre notion.

But I do think that if a husband cheats with a woman, the wife would have to question her marriage while if a husband cheats with a man, the wife would have to question her entire life/worldview. It's one thing to misjudge your husband's trustworthiness; it would be another to misjudge one of the central facts of his life, like his sexuality.

I'm not saying a wife SHOULD do that, but I think many WOULD. I mean, that's a pretty serious double whammy to deal with. "Honey, I cheated and I am gay!! You really don't know anything about me at all!!"

I have had a few friends that were female and found out that their boyfriends cheated on them with men. Those friends were always more upset than the friends who had boyfriends who seated with women. To be honest, I find that odd and nothing more than homophobia in society. The way I look at things, and admittedly I am a bit odd, I would be more enraged the other way around! I will attempt to explain...hang tight..I sometimes ramble...

I am a gay man. I am dating another man. He tells me cheated on me with another man. His ass would be kicked to the curb. Same cheat, but now the man is a woman. I would not be thrilled about the cheating and he might still get kicked to the curb...BUT...she has a few things I don't, so I could see that maybe he needed something that I just couldn't give him. If the person is another male, then the jealously kicks in because I HAVE what he has (for the most part) and that cheating (with a man) would make me feel "less than."

All that being said, I would be more at a loss as why he cheated with another man than a woman because, if he cheated with another man, I would question myself...am I not man enough? If it were a woman, well, I KNOW I am not woman enough! :)

Just my thoughts.

Brightest Blessings!

Damn, I need to do more than spell check! In the above post, "seated" should be "cheated." Sorry!

I was just thinking outloud as to why people would be shocked about this more than they would with the example of Clinton.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

that his wife was aware of his sexuality or his affair(s). Simply stating it doesn't make it true. If she knew and approved, why did he call it such an awful mistake and apologize to her?

the awful mistake could have been having it go public.

asserting that she didn't know. But it is a reasonable default position in the absense of any further information.

How many times have you used words to the effect of "he betrayed his wife"? Just what are you assuming here if it isn't that she didn't know?

"he betrayed his wife".

I'll save you the trouble: zero.

Yet I still maintain a reasonable default position is that his wife didn't know. I know very few modern women who happily marry gay men and let them fuck around all they want. I'm sure it happens, but I wouldn't say it's common.

A gay man married to a woman, while able to have strong feelings for her, is incapable of forming a true marriage with her.


Note I used the words WORDS TO THE EFFECT OF, NOT THOSE WORDS. I think a reasonable interpretation of the above is that he betrayed his wife. Did you not read my post or did you forget what you posted?

but I didn't say what you think I said. And I believe what I said was true. Your experience may be different, but I have known many gay men in marriages, and in none of those cases did the wife know, nor would she approve. Further, not one of the wives who ultimately found out was happy about it. They felt betrayed.

If my boyfriend admitted that he was straight, I would feel betrayed. Now I don't claim to know what Mrs. McGreevey's situation is, but it is not unreasonable to presume she is unhappy with recent developments.

I know some who did so for immigration reasons and some for military ones. Historically Cole Porter's marriage would be an example of an arrangment. I would think being married to a powerful man has its advantages. It isn't outside the realm of possibility that she entered into an arrangment with him. I don't think that it is the most likely thing, but it is possible and we have no idea if it happened or not.

him anyway. She could have loved him so much that she didn't care--and I don't mean in a possessive sexual sense.

Look at Hillary Clinton.

I dunno, as I get older, I understand that people mellow about sexual jealousy as they mature. Some things are just more important--like governing a state or a nation.

and I don't discount the possibility of serious love between them. But I do reject the idea that it's equivalent to real marital love. My very best friend is a woman, and I'd live with her in a minute if circumstances required it, but we would never have a genuine marital relationship.

I am not saying his marriage is a sham because he cheated on his wife and he's gay. But how do any of us know that he felt anything for his wife? I am not trying to imply that he did not have feelings for his wife because he was gay and that keeps him from being able to have feelings for a woman. I am saying that it is entirely possible that his marriage was a sham from the start done only as a cover. I don't know that it was but you don't know that it wasn't. I don't think anyone here feels that Clinton's extra marital affair(s) were/was OK and McGreevy's was not OK because McGreevy was gay. It could be argued that McGreevy's affair was not nearly as bad as Clinton's because McGreevy could have been in a marriage that was a sham from the start (at least a sham to him if not both him and his wife). Who knows? Obviously I am not saying a lot with this post but I am saying that it should be OK for people to wonder if his whole marriage was a sham because that brings up the more important question of why it is in this day and age that he felt he needed to act like someone he was not in order to accomplish what he wanted to accomplish.

That's also a possibility that nobody's considering (and that's common for closet cases in public life).

It has never been "common" for women to marry gay men. It is certainly not common in this day and age.

to marry het women for practical reasons. The women usually have some practical (sometimes financial) reasons for doing so as well.

It happens.

For example: a gay man might have a female friend who is much older/younger than he is, and they are both of some financial means (or maybe not). She might have lost her husband, and she might desire a friend/partner with whom to collaborate financially or just in friendship; the friendship would be mutually beneficial, but platonic. Sometimes this might involve a business or artistic relationship as well, but it's usually a solid and lasting friendship.

The woman might have more money than the man,and then again, she might not. Usually this is a matter of trust and friendship, and delightfully, from what I've seen, it involves mutual interest in something--the arts, a growing business--something.

I don't mean to speak for Brian. This is only what I have seen.

And that sort of thing should be kept private. Putting his lover on the payroll, though, is something else entirely.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

...although I am certain many will argue that adultery IS a problem, I do not believe that it (usually) matters when it comes to politicians doing their jobs, which is the execution of policy in the case of governors and presidents. That being said, I find two areas objectionable:

1. While it is not a question that should ever be posed when a candidate is under oath, it is not permissible for anyone, Clinton included, to lie under oath.

2. It is extremely unethical to appoint someone to a position when you are romantically involved with them.

That being said, I agree that the governor is being unfairly targeted (or rather, placed in the spotlight) because of his sexuality. I sympathize. But like it or not, he has to live with the consequences of his actions. And he acknowledged this.

Finally...yes, it was very different in the 1970s, and no, it was not easy to come out of the closet. But we do not live in the 1970s; the governor was in a position to be open throughout the 90s, at the very least. True, this is not easy, but many other gay men take that risk, even those who want to enter politics. I do not believe his marriage was a sham; he probably was conflicted. But on an ethical level, that does not excuse his infidelity, and on a political level that does not excuse the appointment.

"1. While it is not a question that should ever be posed when a candidate is under oath, it is not permissible for anyone, Clinton included, to lie under oath."


Clinton's underwear was targeted far before he was put on the stand, way before he lied under oath.

He was not the first philandering president, and he will not be the last. Shall we snoop around for what all of the politicians do in their bedrooms (or oval office or elsewhere) and then put them under oath?

We're going to be mighty busy and waste a lot of money if we do. ;-)

McGreevey is in a sham marriage, as is Clinton and Barr and Gingrich were too. It doesn't matter what the gender is. When you cheat on your spouse, you're scum.

I agree with you, but I'm also old enough to know that it happens fairly frequently, especially on the part of males.

But I can't agree that the Clintons' marriage was a scam, because I don't base the value of marriage on sexual activity, exclusively--especially when we're talking about governing the United States.

I don't suppose you watch Dr Phil, but I do occasionally. They have a couple that they are counseling and the wifein the relationship has cheated on the man 3 times, and a baby resulted from one of the affairs. He is still with her remarkably, which says a lot about his loyalty in the face of such utter bullshit. So please don't generalize.

For every nice man out there there is an asshole, and for every nice woman out there there is a bitch. Neither gender is more predisposed to cheat.

Men have a harder time (!) with it.

But men are more predisposed to sex in the purely physical sense. It's no moral excuse, but it's true.

Ask any working woman over 30 who throws elbows at 5:00 a.m....

That goes without saying. I read somewhere that 50% of Americans have cheated on a significant other before. It's just disgusting.

deleted (dupe)

meant that he has finally decided he is homosexual, not bisexual, and not heterosexual. I didn't hear anyone say his marriage was a sham but, if he meant by his statement that he is exclusively homosexual, then continuing his marriage to a woman would be a sham, wouldn't it?

If he had said, instead, that he's bisexual and had had an affair with a man, I'd be more likely to think the marriage might survive, if his wife were willing to try to forgive him.

I agree that adultery is adultery, whatever the gender of the adulterers.

I think he was looking for a port in a storm. If he was resigning because he was a corrupt SOB, he would have no defenders. By announcing that he is suddenly the member of an oppressed group, I think he is hoping to find some defenders. A few people have already fallen for the con, I think.

DSC...thanks for starting this thread! What an interesting array of answers!

My opinion is that adultery is a trust thing, and it should not depend on the adulterer. Also, we do not know what the arrangement was between him and his wife. Some people have different arrangements with their marriages and relationships. Who are we to judge? Also, as for the children, just because the parents do or do not have a "traditional" relationship, this doesn't effect the feelings the parents have for the children. It may take additional explanations to help the children understand, but again, not for us to decide.

On the topic of the "closet." I do wish that one day we would all wake up and be the hues of the spectrum...one end being completely hetero and the other completely homo. I think people would be very surprised at the color they would wake up to. Since that will never happen, we need to realize that not everyone has the same strengths as others and being in the closet is a protection. In the US it is still dangerous for gay people and we do get discriminated against often. So, if you are an "out" gay or lesbian person...great for you! BE proud! I am!!! If you are not out, look for that strength and safety, just don't be a hypocrite and support anti-gay notions or movements!!!

I am sure many will read my post and think "WTF" is he talking about...others will read it and know right off what I am talking about!

Brightest Blessings!

another hypocrite douchebag. In addition to being an adulterer and a liar, he was also corrupt and crooked. The fact that ANYBODY here feels the need to defend him because he had a (D) next to his name is ridiculous.

and asking for one standard in regards to adultery. I don't defend him or the others I listed. I only wound up supporting Clinton due to the ridiculous lengths that his accusers had gone to as documented in the Starr Report. But I am tired of having the homosexual version of things called worse. Adultery is adultery is adultery it is as simple as that.

I can't judge his marriage or any other relationship between any other 2 people on this planet- but I will venture this:
The fact they had 2 kids together and that she appeared with him yesterday looking strong and supportive tells me they had (have) a very significant bond and relationship.
No shams here in my eyes.
BTW, I don't see where the Clintons' home was "wrecked". I see 3 very strong human beings produced by that marriage.

Everyone knew. He and his wife got along ok, they even had a kid. He hired his boyfriends all the time and has continued this practice in now semi-private life.

I have a close friend who came out of the closet after many years of marriage, and I can say the following things with complete confidence:

First, it was entirely different from admitting a heterosexual affair, which is so obvious to any reasonable person that it doesn't even bear discussing.

Second, though in a certain sense my friend had been "in the closet" for his entire life, it is important to recognize that particularly for people of an older generation (my friend is about McGreevey's age) the social engineering in their childhood was likely such that they first have to "come out" to themselves. My friend "knew" his sexual orientation for about four years before coming out; he had been married with children for much longer.

There was an almost unimaginable amount of pain and complex feelings of betrayal on the part of this man's wife that could never, ever be explained in a 1,000 page book, and may never heal. His children were devastated, and it called into question everything they had ever believed about their family. To try to simplify these issues to the level at which they are being discussed on this thread is an absurdity.

When I met my friend, I knew immediately that he was gay (as did he at that point.) His family, including his wife, did not know, and did not suspect it in any way. I understand that this may be hard for many people to believe, and indeed at the time I assumed that there was some sort of "arrangement" and that everyone was in on the secret. However, I know now that it is not at all unusual for a man's family to be the very last to know that he is gay. If you cannot believe or understand this, it probably cannot be explained to you, but it is a fact.

The original poster is right about one thing, in a certain narrow sense - McGreevey's betrayal of his marriage vows is wrong for the same reason it would be wrong for him to have had an affair with a woman. But the depth of the feelings of betrayal on the part of his family is probably much different. One reason for that is that, whether you believe in "binary" sexuality or not, McGreevey almost certainly has never felt genuine sexual attraction for his wife on the level that is normal for a lover to have. Over time, the two of them will have to come to grips with the fact that McGreevey was, in a certain real and important sense, never in love with his wife. It should not be difficult to imagine what a painful process this is for both people.

Lastly, we live in tolerant times, believe it or not, and it is extremely easy to underestimate the level of hatred there was for gay people just a generation ago. In the 1960's, it was still considered a mental disease on a par with genuine psychosis, treated with electroshock therapy. The pressure not to be gay resulted in a lot of closet cases, and we are dealing with the fallout from that intolerance today. Unfortunately, there is no solution to this problem except to increase acceptance of people of all sexual orientations so that we can avoid saddling the next generation with quite so many gay people married to partners they aren't attracted to.

In the meantime, there are a lot more McGreevey's to come.

The original poster is right about one thing, in a certain narrow sense - McGreevey's betrayal of his marriage vows is wrong for the same reason it would be wrong for him to have had an affair with a woman. But the depth of the feelings of betrayal on the part of his family is probably much different. One reason for that is that, whether you believe in "binary" sexuality or not, McGreevey almost certainly has never felt genuine sexual attraction for his wife on the level that is normal for a lover to have. Over time, the two of them will have to come to grips with the fact that McGreevey was, in a certain real and important sense, never in love with his wife. It should not be difficult to imagine what a painful process this is for both people.


You will note that I said, repeatedly, that I HAD NO IDEA WHAT WAS IN HIS OR HER HEART. You, on the otherhand, are "almost certain he wasn't attracted to his wife". Never mind his having had a child from her. And I am the one assuming. What planet are we on here?