Comments on: WHOA! Gay Gov. Resigns

WHOA! Gay Gov. Resigns

jasenlee — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 13:34:46 -0800

MSNBC reports that NJ Gov. James McGreevey is to resign as of November 15th because of an affair he had with another man. A crazy day in politics for both Democrats and Republicans.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 13:37:49 -0800

I just watched it! i'm astounded! good for him! But he should stay in office. i'm so glad i'm working at home today!

By: ParisParamus

ParisParamus — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 13:39:29 -0800

Ick. Gay is Icky, but if he had any balls, he wouldn't have. Then again, he's married, no? Why the reference to Republicans?

By: Civil_Disobedient

Civil_Disobedient — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 13:41:47 -0800

How did this information come out?

By: amberglow

amberglow — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 13:41:51 -0800

because Republicans are always having crazy days (and are far ickier than us gays), Paris. So it's historic--our first openly gay Governor (at least til November).

By: amberglow

amberglow — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 13:43:03 -0800

Civil, he was being sued for harassment (i guess by a guy), so came out to avoid being outed.

By: adampsyche

adampsyche — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 13:44:34 -0800

I just watched the press conference. WTF? And I can confirm that Republicans have a leg up on gays in the ickiness category.

By: Vidiot

Vidiot — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 13:45:51 -0800

How did this information come out? Leaks, mainly. I'd heard gossip earlier today that McGreevey was resigning, but nothing about the gay-affair business. I figured it was because of the fundraising scandals. Very surprising, indeed. I don't think he should resign just over a gay affair -- that's up to him and his family. (And Clinton certainly didn't resign over his affair, nor should he have.) I'm guessing he's resigning because of the possible sexual-harassment suit by a former (male) aide -- WNBC is reporting, per the MSNBC link above, that the lawsuit is expected to be filed on Monday.

By: falconred

falconred — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 13:45:54 -0800

I hope he's not resigning because he's gay, but because of the lawsuits, etc. The article wasn't real clear on the wording. Gay is Icky You're icky.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 13:47:19 -0800

It's funny too, he's had other scandals brewing. This is really amazing.

By: Vidiot

Vidiot — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 13:47:19 -0800

Don't feed the troll.

By: ParisParamus

ParisParamus — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 13:48:14 -0800

Republicans may be equally icky in other ways, but I still want to know why the initial reference in this thread.

By: bwerdmuller

bwerdmuller — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 13:51:11 -0800

If he did resign because of his homosexuality, that's a very sad indictment of modern America. There's obviously still a long way to go. On another note, wouldn't it have been great if his lover had been a Republican governor? It'd be all Romeo and Juliet and stuff.

For never was a story of more woe Than this of the Democrat and his beloved neo-conservative.

Or something.

By: graventy

graventy — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 13:51:45 -0800

I wonder if he's trying to emphasize the gay aspect to make it about him to try and get away from the other scandals that could've brought his governorship and the dominance of the New Jersey democratic party down. Maybe he meant 'crazy days' in politics in reference to Sen. Ryan in Illinois. Or, Bush will resign due to a gay affair. One of the two.

By: ParisParamus

ParisParamus — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 13:53:40 -0800

What's up with Sen. Ryan? Has he announced he's not gay?

By: amberglow

amberglow — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 13:54:33 -0800

Now if only the other closet cases in government would all come out. hmmm....Bush?

By: signal

signal — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 13:54:58 -0800

In a few decades, this will look just like somebody resigning a political post cause they're jewish.

By: ParisParamus

ParisParamus — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 13:55:39 -0800

Also, the SF Gay Marriages are now null and void! Oh, the humanity!

By: kgasmart

kgasmart — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 13:57:57 -0800

...but we're missing the fact that he hired his gay lover to a state post for which the lover was allegedly unqualified to the tune of $110,000 per year. Sorry, right or left, gay or straight, that's a no-no.

By: Asparagirl

Asparagirl — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 13:59:46 -0800

The sexual harrassment legal charge is probably just an attempt by a jilted ex-lover to get back at McGreevey, not actual harrassment. McGreevey hired an Israeli "anti-terrorism expert" named Golan Cipel onto his Cabinet without having him get confirmed or without a background investigation. Cipel stepped down recently under some shady circumstances--people wised up that the Gov's boyfriend was drawing a state check for apparently no good reason. So Cipel is probably filing the suit against McGreevey to get even at being dumped. Hell hath no fury... The comments on this thread over at BuzzMachine have some more dirt, very damaging to McGreevey, but I don't know how accurate it is...so I'll just do the weasely thing and merely link to it. Such a shame the first governor to come out had to do so under such scuzzy circumstances. It would be a nice counterbalance if someday, a gay politicain just came out of the closet for no good reason at all, other than to be honest. Or even if they ran openly in the first place, that would be swell. Still, I guess I'll take my pro-gay political victories where I can get them.

By: lilboo

lilboo — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 14:02:17 -0800

I agree that he really should stay in office, in principle, but the fact that the guy is still married is a sticky one. His family will need a little time to deal, so he could be doing it for their benefit, and you have to respect that. Still this news on top of the Calif. annullments - not one of the better days for civil rights, I'm afraid.

By: Keyser Soze

Keyser Soze — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 14:03:37 -0800

Hoover is laughing from beyond the grave...

By: jasenlee

jasenlee — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 14:03:59 -0800

I referenced the Republicans (without adding enough details) because in the past few days Rodney Alexander switched parties from Dem to Rep and the Republicans are now shipping Alan Keyes to Illinois to run against Barack Obama. Right now the balance between Dem's and Republicans are so close across the board that a few here and there dropping off has a much more significant effect on the balance of party. If Kerry/Edwards won it would also take two more Democrats out of the Senate. Just interesting to think about.

By: terrortubby

terrortubby — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 14:04:14 -0800

Did anyone else watch it live and think his text was really bizarre? In terms of going into his childhood....a public coming out story as opposed to a political resignation. It's playing better in sound bites on news recap. Live it was unweildy and just bizarre.

By: dhoyt

dhoyt — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 14:06:10 -0800

I'm glad he's out of the closet and I hope it improves his life, but cheating on your wife and hiring an unqualified lover and sexually harassing an aide will not exactly make this guy a gay martyr (I'd hope).

By: ChrisTN

ChrisTN — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 14:06:23 -0800

On another note, wouldn't it have been great if his lover had been a Republican governor? I could think of worse ways for Jeb Bush to go. (And is it wrong of me to point out that McGreevey's really cute?)

By: jalexei

jalexei — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 14:07:15 -0800

My native state's politics never fail to entertain - Sadly, (and having nothing to with his sexual orientation) I think he had the tools to be a great leader, but clearly made some questionable decisions and may have put himself in too many pockets getting elected. Frankly, he did better than I thought he would, having inherited a state budget in utter shambles (thanks for nothing, Chrissie(R)). Bigots will jump on this and point to the boyfriend on state payroll as the "danger of gays" but of course they never blame heterosexuality when a man puts a bimbo in a corner office. And not that I swing that way, but he is rather handsome....

By: AstroGuy

AstroGuy — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 14:08:28 -0800

Senator Ryan?

By: Vidiot

Vidiot — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 14:09:36 -0800

It was indeed bizarre live. I work in TV news, and you should have heard the gasp and collective "whoa!" that went up around the newsroom. (Crappy cellphone pic here -- it was on every channel.)

By: rich

rich — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 14:10:48 -0800

I wonder who's funding the sexual harrassment suit.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 14:11:39 -0800

dhoyt, the ex-lover is the aide filing the suit, i think, no?

By: Asparagirl

Asparagirl — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 14:12:39 -0800

point to the boyfriend on state payroll as the "danger of gays" but of course they never blame heterosexuality when a man puts a bimbo in a corner office. He wasn't in some corner office, he was the state's homeland security advisor--and apparently had no qualifications for the job. That's pretty serious.

By: Vidiot

Vidiot — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 14:13:47 -0800

Check out the NY Daily News headline.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 14:14:00 -0800

I'm really suprised they let him run for governor in the first place. Didn't they know?

By: Asparagirl

Asparagirl — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 14:14:50 -0800

er, make that "wasn't just in some corner office..." I mean, if we can't keep our extramarital nookie-toys on the state payroll as anti-terrorism "experts", then the terrorists will have won.

By: adampsyche

adampsyche — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 14:18:30 -0800

A cow-orker of mine whose brother is in NJ state politics said that he was caught getting a bj in the office by the guy. Not a trusted news source, obviously, but there it is.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 14:18:45 -0800

ugh--CNN has Bob Barr on as a commentator about this. WTF?

By: filchyboy

filchyboy — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 14:19:29 -0800

I may be wrong but it's really too early to say that he cheated on his wife or that his family will take some time to deal with it. He may have come out to his wife and family years ago. Don't assume anything.

By: lilboo

lilboo — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 14:26:24 -0800

filchyboy, I'm not exactly making assumptions here - that's what he said:

I'm required to do now, to do what is right to correct the consequences of my actions and to be truthful to my loved ones, to my friends and my family and also to myself.

By: pardonyou?

pardonyou? — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 14:26:52 -0800

I may be wrong but it's really too early to say that he cheated on his wife You're wrong: "Shamefully, I engaged in adult consensual affairs with another man, which violates my bonds of matrimony,"

By: amberglow

amberglow — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 14:31:10 -0800

His wife had to know tho. And Wonkette quotes someone saying it was "the worst kept secret in New Jersey."

By: caddis

caddis — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 14:31:32 -0800

Insiders have known that McGreevey was gay for a long time and it never seemed to matter until this. I am sure there is more to this story, as this is no reason to resign, especially for a fighter like McGreevey. That said, I am not sad to see him go. He surrounded himself with ethically suspect appointees bringing much suspicion upon himself. I do not actually think he was dirty, but if not why all the dirty friends?

By: Asparagirl

Asparagirl — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 14:31:40 -0800

I just watched the video feed on MSNBC. The text of the speech may be good, but the delivery was so creepy and weird and typical-politican-smarm, it was jarring to contrast that with the extraordinary words he was saying.

By: graventy

graventy — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 14:35:43 -0800

Whatever happened to the rumored homsexuality of the Texas governor, Rick Perry?

By: jonmc

jonmc — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 14:40:17 -0800

I think McGreevey did the right thing. Tha gayness is an issue between him and his family, but keeping his lover on a $100,000/year no-show job is a problem. Although I applaud his courage in coming out.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 14:44:24 -0800

Whatever happened to the rumored homsexuality of the Texas governor, Rick Perry? still just rumored till someone brings a suit against him, or it comes out some other way.

By: jalexei

jalexei — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 14:45:05 -0800

He wasn't in some corner office, he was the state's homeland security advisor--and apparently had no qualifications for the job. That's pretty serious. Oh I know - it's a very serious issue, and one that alone would warrant resignation in my eyes. I'm just saying it points to a troubling lapse in judgement...not "gayness" per se, which I'm sure some wing nut will try and argue.

By: PrinceValium

PrinceValium — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 14:45:39 -0800

Wow. Here in Connecticut, our governors resign for boring reasons. Still, I kind of wish McGreevey would clean up shop and institute reform rather than resign, even if he's relegated to being a weak governor for the rest of his term. The speech had the makings of "I have to quit because I'm gay," which is a horrible message to send to the millions of people still in the closert.

By: solistrato

solistrato — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 14:51:42 -0800

Maybe McGreevey could out Perry? Turn the governorships of two states into DRAMA???

By: armacy

armacy — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 14:53:56 -0800

i love my dead, gay governor. even the seniors in my dad's living "community" (called leisuretowne) knew mc greevey was gay, so this lawsuit must be something quite interesting...

By: XQUZYPHYR

XQUZYPHYR — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 14:54:02 -0800

I actually just left my job yesterday as a Legislative Aide for a member of the New Jersey State Assembly. (Changing careers, it has nothing to do with this, just for the record) I'm reprinting my blog post here since it bears some insight from a very, VERY minor internal position.

I was actually going to write- I am not kidding here- a post today about how yesterday was my last day on the job as a legislative aide for New Jersey Assemblywoman Loretta Weinberg. It's an easy joke, but yeah: you leave the office for one day... I'm absolutely blown away by McGreevy's revelation. That said, I can't really feign ignorance about the issue. For professional reasons, but mostly because I simply don't have details to provide, I can't and won't name specifics about what I had already heard/known through people both in Bergen County and Trenton about the secret of Jim McGreevy. But I can't pretend I didn't know about much of this. Basically, McGreevy wasn't gay the way Israel doesn't have nuclear weapons. It's no one's business to ask, no one that counts would tell you the truth, but... come on. That said, the suit from McGreevy's (let's abandon the pretense of "alleged" here) former lover is likely frivolous. It's apparent that Golan Cipel knew exactly what would happen as the result of filing such a lawsuit, and this was his intention: not to actually legally punish McGreevy, but to ruin his life. Hell hath no fury like a lover scorned. Other than that, I'm out of information. I'm unlikely to provide the smarmy and unnecessary attempts at humor of the type Wonkette will derive from a story like this, and too admiring of the man personally to launch the intevitable attempts at humor of the type Matt Drudge will derive from this. As for the merits of McGreevy's private choice of lifestyle beyond his "honesty" with the people of New Jersey, I think a casual reader of my site would know that the basic issue of homosexuality is irrelevant to me. That he is who he is isn't just irrelevant, beyond this post it's the last I plan to speak of it in terms of McGreevy's character. Character, however, I'll make a note of. I have met McGreevy, only once, and only briefly. But his attendance at the event where I met him - signing a bill honoring and establishing benefits for a fallen 9/11 firefighter at a Ridgefield Park Hook & Ladder station, depicted a man who, amidst personal issues undeserving of media scrutiny, a genuinely decent human being. McGreevy was a good man who chose some really bad friends. Take that for what it's worth, as a significant percentage of the country won't. Politically, clearly McGreevy is beyond dead; he's vapor. This could very well affect a few Congressional seats in New Jersey, a large portion of the farm-area populace of the Garden State still in that mentality's corresponding cultural era. So, with that, I make the bold, and obscenely rare statement following today's events: I haven't for the moment a goddamn clue what's going to happen next.

By: filchyboy

filchyboy — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 14:57:34 -0800

It may be part of their agreement that he was to mess around on the side as long as he did not get her involved. (Obviously if that's the case it didn't work since she had to stand beside him when he made this announcement. This is fairly common among bisexuals in marriages. They may be playing dumb to protect the kids (assuming they have kids, I don't know) from retaliation at school or among their peers. She may be a lesbian and they are acting to protect her career. There are lots of reasons why what they are saying publicly may not sync up with what went on in their marriage. I'd just be very careful about jumping to conclusions here.

By: WolfDaddy

WolfDaddy — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 15:01:11 -0800

Wait, wasn't this supposed to happen to Rick Perry?

By: jokeefe

jokeefe — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 15:10:29 -0800

*sits back in Canadian easy chair, thinks nice thoughts about my openly gay MP who was recently re-elected by a landslide....*

By: Asparagirl

Asparagirl — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 15:13:46 -0800

fairly common among bisexuals in marriages Ahem. You must mean "among closeted gay men hiding in ostensibly heterosexual marriages to protect their careers", right? Because all the bisexuals I know who are married, whether to opposite-sex or same-sex partners, are faithful to their spouses. Bisexual is not and should not be a synonym for "closeted jackass who wants both public approval and private nookie". This has been your Bisexual Awareness Post for today. Tomorrow's topic: who has cuter butts, men or women?

By: falconred

falconred — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 15:16:27 -0800

"closeted jackass who wants both public approval and private nookie" That would be polyamory.

By: filchyboy

filchyboy — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 15:22:25 -0800

Actually no that's not at all what I meant. If I inferred that synonym then please forgive me. You obviously do not enough enough gays or bisexuals. I know hundreds. I have run a support group for folks such as he for many years. Your assumption that he was hiding within a heterosexual marriage to protect his career is no more valid than declaring that he cheated on his wife. If he is at all like others of his ilk he did not come out to himself for many years after the marrriage got off the ground. Being faithful by your apparent definition does not apply to all bisexuals or gays within marriages. The only two people who know the details are he and his wife.

By: filchyboy

filchyboy — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 15:25:13 -0800

Sorry that should have read "You obviously do not know enough gays and bisexuals within marriages such as the one the Governor and his wife exposed publicly today". I didn't mean to imply you Asparagirl do not know enough bisexuals and gays. Sorry once again for the confusion.

By: Asparagirl

Asparagirl — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 15:38:24 -0800

I have run a support group for folks such as he for many years But he defines himself as gay, not bisexual. And he said in his speech that he always knew he was gay, but suppressed it. This is not a happily married man finding a new side of himself at a late age, this is a gay guy who lived (barely-)undercover for 47 years and used his two wives as beards to further his political ambitions. I'm just trying to say that bisexual has a very specific meaning: people who like people of either gender. It says nothing about a person's monogamy or non-monogamy. Calling McGreevey's marriage a bisexual one--presuming his wife is a hetero--is therefore both technically incorrect and demeaning to all the happily-married bisexuals out there, because it implies the tolerance of adultery.

By: caddis

caddis — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 15:42:17 -0800

I believe his sexual orientation was publicly known prior to his present marriage. I have no idea what arrangements they may have, but Dina must have known before marrying him.

By: John Kenneth Fisher

John Kenneth Fisher — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 15:42:32 -0800

The part that most annoys me (as an NJ resident) is that this could have been such a POSITIVE thing: coming out like this, except that a) He's resigning over it, or something related, sending a very very bad message, and b) No one really likes McGreevey anyway. And I say that as a Democrat who has and would happily vote for him over the opposition party.

By: jonmc

jonmc — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 16:03:46 -0800

a) He's resigning over it, or something related, sending a very very bad message, Well, he also apparently did do something unsavory as far as keeping his lover on the state payroll without qualification, so for him not to resign sends a bad message, too. Corruption is corruption.

By: filchyboy

filchyboy — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 16:06:33 -0800

Actually Aspargirl once again no. I am not using the term bisexual in the political sense. Sorry if my use of it is misleading. In the functional sense, which is the way I was using the term - and its very common among married gays and bisexuals to use gay and bisexual interchangably when speaking of function - he is a bisexual as he fathered children. In effect in every marriage involving non hetero-sexuality if there are children born then bisexuality is a given. This is aside from his political declaration of being gay. (There is a weakenss in my first post because I was assuming that as a politician he did father children - bad assumption to make I know - no matter that I was correct). Your definition of adultery does not parse. In some marriages I know she is allowed to mess around on the side as long as no emotional attachment takes place. In some marriages he is allowed to as long as he wears protection and doesn't spend the night away from the home. In either example as long as the rules are followed neither party considers adultry to be in play. Every marriage is different and has different rules to which the two parties agree. Your use of the term adultery entails that his messing around was behind her back. What I am saying is that may not be the case. You said: "But he defines himself as gay, not bisexual. And he said in his speech that he always knew he was gay, but suppressed it. This is not a happily married man finding a new side of himself at a late age, this is a gay guy who lived (barely-)undercover for 47 years and used his two wives as beards to further his political ambitions." It is fairly common to come out in later years and come to the realization that one has always known one is gay but has been in denial. You see you just don't know whether theirs was a happy marriage. As a point of order you should probably be aware that a large number of gay married men "find themselves" in their late 50's and early 60's. So it's probably not accurate to use the word late here. Please understand this guy may be exactly as you paint him: he may be a jackass who has been actively hiding in the closet with a beard so he can gain acceptance for his desire to wield political power. My point is that we just cannot make this assumption. After reading his stance on gay marriage, hiring his lover, whiffs of corruption, etc I have to admit I don't like the guy. But please be aware that your moral definitions of adultry may not have anything whatsoever to do with the marriage in question. I suspect that the truth of all this will not be known publicly for a long time to come.

By: filchyboy

filchyboy — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 16:15:24 -0800

I should follow up by saying that the difference between self identifying as gay or self identifying as bisexual with marriages, at least among men, is a very touchy subject with those involved. Far more argument and lines in the sand result from the sloppy use of those terms within marriages. It is often the case that the party coming out will take a very political stance vis-a-vis the use of the terms and that the use will evolve over the course of the marriage. I know I didn't explain that very well. I have to go out but will return in a few to try and explain in more detail if needed. My point is simply your using the term bisexual in a poltical sense and my using it in a functional sense is a confusion that has been played out many many times in many different households and will probably continue for a long time to come.

By: gesamtkunstwerk

gesamtkunstwerk — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 16:27:34 -0800

Shouldn't the intelligence community be looking at who's working for Homeland Security? I had a security check before I was even a fulbright scholar. Shouldn't someone in the dept. of homeland security or state of NJ stood up and said, this guy doesn't know homeland security from a hole in the ground? Lying is bad, patronage is bad, but incompetence that risks national security is a whole lot worse.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 16:32:52 -0800

they did do that, i think, gesamt, and dumped him. On Hardball (which is being very hard on him), they said McGreevey actually met this guy years ago, brought him over here, and gave him at least 5 jobs in various places. This sounds more and more to me like a jilted, longtime lover getting payback.

By: Asparagirl

Asparagirl — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 16:41:57 -0800

filchyboy- No, no, I understand what you're saying now; the functional vs. political labels are a good way of separating the issues involved. Sorry if I got a little touchy--I just don't like gay people who use straight people for cover (even with the straight person's consent), and I really don't like them being inaccurately labeled as bisexual, even if the existence of a kid or two makes that true-on-a-technicality. Some of us actually-bi's are honest to ourselves, our spouses, our families, our friends, and don't like getting the sins of the closet-cases splashed all over us.

By: lilboo

lilboo — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 16:50:10 -0800

His wife may have known, but we don't know to what extent his kids knew, or for that matter, whether or not he was ever truthful with his parents. (I think it's wrong to assume that the wife is the only one seriously affected by an infidelity.) But I don't think his political career is over. If he handles this situation correctly from this point on, we will see him in some political office again. Hopefully. At this point, he's a lot more intriguing.

By: IshmaelGraves

IshmaelGraves — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 18:03:52 -0800

It was indeed bizarre live. I work in TV news, and you should have heard the gasp and collective "whoa!" that went up around the newsroom. The "WHOA!" in MSNBC's <title> amused me to no end.

By: IshmaelGraves

IshmaelGraves — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 18:06:18 -0800

</title> Sorry, I've been mucking around with XML all day and the unclosed tag was bothering me. Yes, I do need to get out more.

By: davidmsc

davidmsc — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 18:16:30 -0800

His homosexuality is NOT the reason that he is resigning. His infidelity, his hiring of the guy that may or may not be qualified, and a handful of other state-specific scandals ARE the reasons that he is resigning. It is not a setback -- nor an advance -- for "gay America." It is simply a politician who f'd up -- big-time -- and is trying to lay the blame anywhere he can.

By: caddis

caddis — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 18:25:27 -0800

But I don't think his political career is over. If he handles this situation correctly from this point on, we will see him in some political office again. Hopefully. At this point, he's a lot more intriguing. I agree, as long as this resignation is not the result of an impending graft or bribery scandal.

By: lilboo

lilboo — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 18:42:45 -0800

davidmsc - other politicans have been accused of much worse, *cough* rumsfeld *cough* with more evidence, *cough* cheney *cough*and more lurid details, *cough* clinton *cough* and still kept their hold on the office. If he was cheating on his marriage with a woman, he wouldn't have resigned. Don't kid yourself. This is a bias thing. And it is a setback. He should have stayed in.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 18:43:04 -0800

It is not a setback -- nor an advance -- for "gay America." It is simply a politician who f'd up -- big-time -- and is trying to lay the blame anywhere he can. He came out. Granted, he had to, because if and when the suit is filed, he'd be outed, but it's still a good thing. It's a very good thing for him, given that he's not living a lie or hiding things, and it's good for the country. It wouldn't have been shocking or surprising if we had openly gay people in more public offices, but we don't. Now we do, even if he's just as bad as the straight politicians.

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 19:05:15 -0800

this is a gay guy who ... used his two wives as beards I don't think gay guys use women for beards. At least, not in the way I'm thinking a woman could be a man's beard. How can you say "if he was...with a woman, he wouldn't have resigned"? If he's looking for an excuse to resign before the shit really comes down the pipe, he's gonna use whatever excuse comes handy.

By: solistrato

solistrato — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 19:15:38 -0800

His homosexuality is NOT the reason that he is resigning. If the jilted appointee had been a woman, would this be a 75-comment thread on Metafilter?

By: lilboo

lilboo — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 19:20:16 -0800

Fish - It depends on the merits of "the shit" in this situation, which at this point, we can only speculate. Again, they had a lot more on Clinton, but he weathered the storm.

By: CunningLinguist

CunningLinguist — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 19:25:03 -0800

If the governor resigned suddenly because of a woman, yes. But clearly this is more than that's he's gay. There's dark stuff floating around. "Given the circumstances surrounding the affair, and its likely impact upon my family and my ability to govern, I have decided the right course of action is to resign."

By: amberglow

amberglow — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 19:29:40 -0800

this is probably it: The man involved in the affair, a former government employee, demanded "an exorbitant sum of money to make it go away," a high-ranking administration official told the Associated Press, speaking on condition of anonymity. Cabinet members and administration officials learned of that threat Wednesday night, the source said. You can't blackmail someone who's out--you can only do that with closetcases.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 19:40:20 -0800

Oh no!

By: amberglow

amberglow — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 19:41:57 -0800

Children will sob: "Why is Daddy moving the furniture and who is Judy Garland?" hah!

By: WolfDaddy

WolfDaddy — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 20:49:09 -0800

I don't think gay guys use women for beards. You don't know Mimi or Nicole very well, do you?

By: graventy

graventy — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 21:26:44 -0800

You don't know Mimi or Nicole very well, do you? Hey. Lay off the guy, will ya!

By: HTuttle

HTuttle — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 23:20:33 -0800

When the sh*t hits the fan, play the gay card.

By: matteo

matteo — Fri, 13 Aug 2004 02:09:34 -0800

I'm desperately in love with Mimi Rogers.

By: XQUZYPHYR

XQUZYPHYR — Fri, 13 Aug 2004 03:03:51 -0800

When the sh*t hits the fan, play the gay card. "The gay card?" As if this, you know, happens frequently? Or ever before? What the hell are you talking about? You honestly believe that in this culture, the public perception of a politician accused of (gasp!) being unethical or dishonest is made better by declaring that he's a homosexual? That's like saying Clinton solved all his problems with Whitewater by revealing the Lewinsky affair. Next week: Bush reveals "of course I wasn't at guard duty that year; I was on a cross-country killing spree at the time!" Thank you once again, HTuttle, for your trademark last-minute single-line dose of guh? that MeFi has come to know and love.

By: Outlawyr

Outlawyr — Fri, 13 Aug 2004 08:27:56 -0800

Metafilter: If I inferred that synonym then please forgive me. Sorry, I have nothing constructive to add. And before anyone else does it, Metafilter: Sorry, I have nothing constructive to add.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Fri, 13 Aug 2004 08:42:06 -0800

ah, the NJ repubs are calling for him to step down now (if he waits til nov. they have no shot at running anyone for the seat since the state senate pres (a dem) gets it for the year remaining).

By: HTuttle

HTuttle — Fri, 13 Aug 2004 17:21:27 -0800

The gay card...diversion from the facts of his sleazy political existance. I guess you haven't seen a TV show in the past decade have you? No one gives a crap about 'gay' anymore, unless it's to play the 'shutup, you're a homophobe' game.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Mon, 16 Aug 2004 19:15:52 -0800

A great NYT op-ed on McGreevey, marriage, and his generation.