Jonathan Rauch weighs in on the McGreevey affair and what it says about the marriage fight in a Sunday New York Times Op-Ed, no less. He writes:
The gay-marriage debate is often conducted as if the whole issue were providing spousal health insurance and Social Security survivors' benefits for existing same-sex couples. All of that matters, but more important, and often overlooked, is the way in which alienation from marriage twists and damages gay souls. ...
Opponents of same-sex marriage sometimes insist that gays can marry. Marriage, they say, isn't all about sex. It can be about an abstinent, selfless love. Well, as Benjamin Franklin said, where there is marriage without love there will be love without marriage. I'm always startled when some of the same people who say that gays are too promiscuous and irresponsible to marry turn around and urge us into marriages that practically beg to end in adultery and recklessness.
The Human Rights Campaign is praising Democrat McGreevey for
showing "enormous courage," despite the growing allegations
that the New Jersey governor gave his then-lover a high paying
position for which he was unqualified. As gay historian and author
Eric
Marcus comments in the New York Times:
"I don't think it reflects well on gay people. Here is a man who chose to hide who he was, came out under pressure because he had engaged in an adulterous affair, had given his romantic partner a government job. It's not exactly a moment I think anybody who has been involved in the gay rights movement can take pride in."
Except if you're a Democratic Party front like HRC. The Log Cabin Republicans, while sympathetic to McGreevey's situation, called on him to resign immediately rather than wait until Nov. 15 (which is McGreevey's way of ensuring that his unelected Democrat successor needn't face voters until 2005).
Another result of the McGreevey affair is a spotlight on gay men who marry women but seek out sex with men -- a huge, but under the radar -- phenom. The Washington Post takes a look in a piece titled "Married Men with Another Life to Live".
"That's Great"?
Mostly overlooked in last week's news was President
Bush's statement on CNN's Larry King show that, as regards
states providing legal recognition to gay couples through civil
unions, "That's up to states." Bush added:
"If they want to provide legal protections for gays, that's great. That's fine. But I do not want to change the definition of marriage. I don't think our country should."
Let's go over that one more time. A conservative Republican president just said "that's great" about states granting legal protections to gay couples. It doesn't make up for supporting the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment, but it's worth some major news coverage, wouldn't you think?
Meanwhile, over at Overlawyered.com, Walter Olson provides
an
update on one state where the GOP legislature clearly is far to
the right of President Bush. In Virginia, there are increasing
ramifications from a reprehensible new law banning gays from
entering into marriage-like contracts.
More Recent Postings
8/08/04 - 8/14/04