Newly published promotional excerpts from former New Jersey Gov. Jim McGreevey's autobio detail how he "forced himself to take on girlfriends" while having anonymous gay encounters of the seedier kind. It's all very sad, but McGreevey's choices (including his two marriages) were to a large extent fueled by his relentless political ambition.
You can only wonder how many other closeted gay men still choose to make these sorts of "compromises" each and every day.
More. Golan Cipel gives his side of the story in the Daily News:
"I wasn't his lover," Cipel, 37, said. "I didn't have sex with him. I never heard anything from him saying that he loved me. The only things that happened were sexual harassments. And unwanted sexual advances and assaults." ...
In his book, McGreevey writes: "I took Golan by the hand and led him upstairs to my bed. We undressed and he kissed me. It was the first time in my life that a kiss meant what it was supposed to mean. ... I pulled him to the bed and we made love like I'd always dreamed: a boastful, passionate, whispering, masculine kind of love."
So, who is telling the truth? (Or, alternatively, why should anyone care?)
37 Comments for “McGreevey’s Tangled Web of Deceit”
posted by Bobby on
He was his own worse enemy. I’m glad he came out of the closet, but I’m not proud of him. Some gay men are very selfish with themselves, they think they have to please everyone, and God forbid anyone was every dissapointed in them. Maybe McGreevey will help some gays come out before being forced out.
posted by Marc on
McGreevey’s coming out wouldn’t seem so insincere to me if he hadn’t uttered that disingenuous “I’m proud to be a gay American” comment at his press conference. He isnt proud; he is out because he had no choice. He would be back in the closet if it wasnt for that. This book could serve as a reminder to people how tough it is leading such a double life, but McGreevey once again seems like he is doing this for his own self-serving interests.
posted by Michael S on
Stephen, you make it sound awful that a man holding public office chooses to not make his (sex) life a matter of public record. I agree with you; it’s terrible that it’s necessary, but things are certainly changing at the grass roots level. Let’s hope that works its way up.
posted by jomicur on
The only point of interest about McGreevey’s book, in my mind, is how much HRC had to do with shaping its “message.” They stage-managed his coming-out, up to and including the smug, self-serving “proud to be a gay American” rubbish. And the book is being promoted as “inspirational,” which certainly sounds like their kind of touchy-feely rhetoric. How can they be so desperate to give us a “hero” that they latched onto this self-promoting hustler? I’d love to see a true gay American hero/role model, but McGreevey doesn’t even come close to the mark
posted by Randy R. on
AGreed. There are a great many other people who were actually courageous and came out on their own.
BTW, I recall that Cipel the Boyfriend on Gov’t Payroll was pretty hot, yet he denied that he was gay. What’s he doing nowadays?
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
I largely agree with the prior comments.
What’s so remarkable about a politician who lies to the public, gets caught in the lie, and then embraces the truth as an effort to recast his failed career as a “moral victory?”
posted by Mark on
Please don’t be so hard on McGreevy. I don’t know him at all, but I think anyone who grew up gay in the 60’s can identify with his sad lot. Self-promoting hustler? Perhaps, but if he has carried around as much baggage for as many years as he has, having all the while to hide, lie, and cheat, he must have had great abilities somewhere that enabled him to carry it off. Can we, looking at whatever path we have taken (or not) to being “out,” be so critical and so quick to demean another because he had an unusual degree of success? Are we all so free of deceit, pretense, and anxiety that we can stand so in judgement of another of our number? Or do all of us read McGreevy’s sad recounting of his life and quietly shudder for him, knowing that we too, at some time or in some way have trod that path of insecurity, self-hate, and fear?
posted by Randy R. on
Mark, you are of course right. I’m sure he’s had it tough. But we all did, and none of us wrote a book about it and sought such self-serving publicity.
I have much sympathy for the pain he experienced, and the pain of those close to him.
However, he placed his lover in charge of homeland security for the state of NJ, even though the guy had no experience whatsoever. At that point, I don’t give a damn about his pain — that’s between him and his therapist. When his pain prevents him from doing the job he was elected to do — serve the people of NJ in manner they deserve — then he should have stepped down at that point.
The office of governorship is not some process of self-discovery. It is a job with specific requirements and duties, and he failed at least some of them. Now he has a book out and we are supposed to feel sorry for him that he couldn’t do his job as a governor because of all this pain?
Sorry — but we need to hold gay people to the same standards of competence that we hold straight people. ONly then we will get the respect that we all deserve from all people.
posted by Antaeus on
Marc et al,
Israeli Golan Cipel didn’t get his totally inappropriate appointment because he was McGreevey’s lover – he seduced McGreevey in order to convey Israeli weaponry through the New Jersey Port Authority. This is the reason Governor James chose to refer to himself as a Gay American, and I applaud him. At a crossroads, he chose to immolate himself in the public eye rather than put up with the blackmail. Notice that Mr. Cipel insists he’s straight – and I believe him. A spy/whore, a male Esther, he was totally committed to his assignment and to *his* country. But he met his match! How many other politicians are similarly compromised, but owing to their faithful treasons are never revealed? It makes me shudder.
posted by Tom on
Way too much info in that book excerpt. I’d expect a former governor of one of the most populous states to have a little more discretion and a lot less kiss-n-tell.
posted by George86 on
I think Randy R’s comments are perfectly on target: the primary ‘truth’ about McGreevey is not his homosexual orientation, but his irresponsibility and deceitfulness in the govenor’s office.
As a resident of NJ who had lived near Woodbridge (where McGreevey was Mayor), I am fully aware of the rather high degree of dashed hopes and even contempt that citizens had for him. McGreevey was viewed as someone who used his position for ‘the good life’ and not for the the good of the town. When he was acting governor, that reputation continued. It was known that those who worked closely with him had, as their primary job, ‘damage control’ to cover up his frequent gaffs (that is, not only his involvements with gay men at highway rest stops, but also his frequent trips to topless bars during daytime hours). He was flirting with political disaster, and his reckless behavior — which was quite public — became an easy tool for someone like Cipel to use for his own purposes.
Antaeus (above) says that Cipel met his political match in McGreevey. This is the kind of fiction McGreevey would like us to believe. I think the real truth is that McGreevey was caught with his pants down (both figuratively and actually), and his book and upcoming appearances are an attempt to salvage whatever is left of his public persona. As a gay man, I find it contemptuous that he is using his orientation to sucker public pity. The truly noble thing would be for him to acknowledge his own grave lack of integrity while in office, and offer sincere apologies to the people of NJ.
posted by Mark on
I don’t disagree that McGreevey’s public abuse is despicable and that he must be held to the same level of accountability to which we’d hold any public office holder–especially a governor–his appointment of Cipel (regardless of what they did or didn’t do in bed) was irresponsible and capricious. (Which only makes me think that they DID have some kind of romantic involvement.) My point was just that we should cut him some slack about hiding his homosexuality while aspiring to public office. George86 sheds more light on the nature of the man’s public performance, and it is unfortunate that he abused his office (for any reason) but to heap more anguish on him because he withheld his homosexuality is something that I think anyone older than 30 can understand and appreciate. Thanks for a great dialogue.
posted by jomicur on
Mark, I don’t see what McGreevey growing up in the 60s has to do with anything. As it happens, I grew up in the 60s too. And I can’t resist observing that at no point did McGreevey “have to” hide, lie and cheat. He had the same option as the rest of us: to be honest and truthful. He chose not to, period. No one here is “demeaning” McGreevey because he had “an unusual degree of success.” We are merely underscoring the fact that that success was based on lies and hypocrisy. You ask, “Are we all so free of deceit, pretense, and anxiety that we can stand so in judgement of another of our number?” To which I can only respond, yes, most of us never begin to achieve deceit on the scale McGreevey did. Are you seriously suggesting that we should give dishonest public officials a pass because everybody tells fibs now and then? Go ahead and sympathize with him, if you must. But if he is the best the gay community can come up with as a role model, we?re in serious trouble.
posted by Mark on
Thanks, Jomicur for holding MY feet to the fire. I agree with you, actually. And I guess it was your comment, above, that prompted my first comment about finding compassion for McGreevey. I DON’T think he should have a pass regarding the things he did wrong in office, and he was clearly dishonest in his dealings as governor. But if we vilify every gay person who ever withheld information about his or her homosexuality to conform to societal expectations, we would have little tolerance for any gay man. Is it changing? Yes, and for the better, I’m happy to say, but very few of our generation were able to be so up front and honest about our sexuality before 15-20 years ago. I admire anyone who has had that kind of freedom, but I didn’t, and I don’t think McGreevey did, and so I have empathy for his position. Is he the best role model for the gay community? No, I wouldn’t say so…but few if any role models are completely free of some kind of skeleton in his or her closet. (No pun intended. Really.) 🙂
posted by Randy R. on
Great dialogue, guys. And no name calling! How refreshing….
REading over all the comments, I think we tend to agree more than we disagree. We all deplore McGreevey’s actions as a governor. As for sympathy, I understand perfectly Mark’s comments. Being gay is tough for in any circumstances, but some of us are tougher than others. I myself didn’t come out until very late in life. I could have and should have done it sooner, to my regret. But I simply wasn’t tough enough to handle it (Or so I thought. If you are tough enough to handle being the closet, I learned, being out is a piece of cake by comparison). And that’s something we all learn, sometimes the hard way.
Perhaps McGreevey simply wasn’t tough enough. I hold no contempt against someone who couldn’t or wouldn’t come out when he had opportunities. It is a special hell that one makes for oneself, and anyone there has my sympathies.
However, when that hell spills over into reckless disregard for others, then something must be done, and that gets none of my sympathy.
Ultimately, our choice is that we can choose not to buy his book, or listen to his justifications, or we can. The real point here is that this should be a lesson to other closeted politicians — come out now, when you can, and live your life openly and honestly. You and the body politic will be better for it, and we will support it.
On this, I hope we can all agree. And that should be the message the gay community sends.
posted by Mark on
Randy, Jomicur, and others. I agree. I’d give you ten Jim McGreevey’s for one Barney Frank or even Jim Kolbe, and I wish we had more openly gay members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. I wish we could get this group that has been dialoguing over this issue together on a Friday night for coffee and discussion. I really miss being in a good discussion group of gay men…or at least open-minded people. They wouldn’t all have to be gay. Anyway, thanks for the stimulating discussion. I’ll confess that my professional study of gay issues has prompted me to buy McGreevey’s book. 🙁 I’ll write a review, perhaps, after I’ve read it. Best always!
posted by Jorge on
You know, you can say what you will about him, but a lot of it is so much nevermind. People know what the deal is. People here know. To me it feels as if there is something fundamentally human about the man. Something flawed, something that even now, is just not right. And yet one knows “but for the grace of God, there go I.”
I want to comment over a few minutes of the Oprah appearance I saw today. Main reason I wanted to see it was to see the audience being sour to him; I’m not a fan of his.
There was something creepy about it all. The level of graphic detail parts of the book they read went into really alienated me. He wrote a book about his sexual experiences? Is that really important? I know what people are going to say, that it represents what happens when a gay man lives a double life. But there’s something–maybe the fact that he’s a political figure–that just screams wrong to air.
The other thing I found creepy was the way he trumpeted his so-called recovery and contrition. I thought he was sincere, but it was all about him. His needs. Like he was somehow proud of the fact that he was struggling, and that this made him important.
posted by jomicur on
Mark, I think we’re all pretty much on the same page here, and I really don’t want this to degenerate into a pissing contest. But I have to make one final (I promise) comment. It always leaves me scratching my head when I hear anyone talk about closeted public officials in terms that conflate them with ordinary (as it were) gays on the street. The differences are obvious, in my mind–class, power and influence. When I hear a story about a closeted gay kid who’s afraid to come out because his parents might disown him, my heart breaks a little. When I hear about lesbians raped by male family members to “make them straight” I seethe with outrage. I’ve been corresponding online with a gay kid (age 22) in Serbia whose boyfriend committed suicide when his family learned he was gay. Belonging to any minority is very tough; belonging to one as vilified as us can be nightmarish. But how many of us have the kind of social, financial and political resources and opportunities of a man in McGreevey’s position? McGreevey was–and IS–having it both ways, enjoying all the advantages his class and position give him and yet complaining about how rough life is as a gay man (and until recently opposing gay marriage, I might add). I remember all too well how awful life in the closet can be. But I reserve my sympathy for the people who are trapped there, with few other options. This is just a guess, but I don’t think my young Serbian friend will be getting a $500,000 book deal anytime soon. And he certainly won’t get the chance to put a boytoy on the public payroll with a six-figure salary. Pretending that all closeted people are equal misses the point entirely.
posted by Mark on
Hey, Jomicur, you and I are of the same mind. I guess the closest non-gay example I could give is Martha Stewart. She got caugt, sent up, did her time, and wah-wah. She came home to her “farm” and her job and her millions and has lived life in the lap of luxury ever since. But I guess MY point is that she “did her time.” Hundreds of others haven’t been caught. James McGreevey got caught, came out, resigned, and felt the shame of the whole issue (to say nothing of his wife and daughter), and then got a half mill book deal. Wah-wah. But in a sense, he also did his time. I’m sorry, I’m not trying to make this into a pissing match either, (although I guess I am somewhat–I really do enjoy this exchange, however), but I do have compassion for McGreevey because of whatever caused him to remain in the closet (and yes, oppose gay marriage in the process). I really don’t have “sympathy” for him…I have empathy, however, as I know you do–and as all of us do–because of what we have been through and how tough we know it is and how tough it makes us. But you’re right, in the end. He’s getting a fat book deal. Your young friend is probably going to get more trouble from his family, friends, the police and his government. No, there is no fairness in life. I guess if I had the opportunity to help someone like your young Serbian friend, I wouldn’t take the time to shed any tears for Jim McGreevey. And tonight, I won’t. I’ll save those tears for the thousands of young Serbian, Jordanian, Iraqi, British, American and all other kids who are suffering under the oppression of a society that defines as unacceptable anything they can’t experience and which we can’t (and don’t want to) change. I think you are my friend. I’m glad. Let’s continue to dialogue on other (or this) issue. It’s healthy. Thanks.
posted by Marc on
Great comments all. Certainly has made my seething over McGreevey’s condescending Oprah appearance a little less caustic. How sad that he is using a ploy right out of the Jimmy Swaggart plybook: playing the God card. He must have repeated six times how he “shamed his God” by engaging in the “sin” of having an affair while he was married. Whether you believe him is up to you, but, like most things he says, I viewed his sudden “God” talk as a way to turn himself into a victim. His book, he says, is his act of contrition, but as many so point out on here, it is really his opportunistic way of making money off this situation. Hopefully, he’ll really feel sorrow and give the money to his kids.
posted by Mike on
Hey guys. Great comments. I was online looking for information about McGreevey. I bought the book last night and at page 50, I can relate to many of the feelings and emotions he has shared as a young gay person. (I am 42, so a little younger than McGreevey.) However, I work with a person who is originally from NJ. She claims that McGreedey did not resign from office due to his sexual orientation being brought to the forefront. She claims all of NJ knew he was a gay man. She says he resigned from office due to federal crimes he committed while governor, and was granted a deal if he would leave office. Is there any truth to this, or is is simply some sort of urban myth? Anyone know? As for Golan, I actually think he is lying. I think they had a sexual affair and Golan is simply embarassed or does not want to be tagged with the title of McGreevey’s loverboy for the rest of his life. Great forum and really enjoying reading everyone’s opinions.
posted by ETJB on
I have not read the book, nor do I plan to unless it hits the library. He faced a blackmailer by coming out of the closet and thus ending his political career That is no small affair.
Meanwhile…Jeff Gannon….
posted by Bill from FL on
Hi Mike,
I was born and raised in NJ and for 6 years lived and worked in the area Mc Greevey was powerful in. (Woodbridge Township)I can say that it was a rumor and a relatively steady one in that part of the state. For example I have a friend that knew a cop in that area who saw him leaving a dumpy motel with another guy.
I remember he married Dina Matos Mc G not terribly long before he ran for Gov.. Unfortunately when he ran in 1996 the GOP made a sort of issue about him being single so I guess that had something to do with him marrying her. (Whitman was more unabashedly gay friendly in that election than he was, by the way….but that is another story).
I left NJ just after his coming out fiasco (My coworkers had to listen to me cackling loudly for about 3 hours). I can say that most NJ’ers did not care that he was gay but that he was such a corrupt self serving,self promoting and unpopular, do-nothing moron. I don’t think NJ’ians could stomach anti-gay Brett Schundler (nor could I)so that is why he got in. (He did a good job for gays and reformed the DMV though which were brownie points for me.)
Not that I am some kind of expert, but if anyone needs more thoughts on him I am all ears….just email me (I don’t visit here much as I would like)
posted by Jorge on
I love God talk, especially when it comes from someone who’s screaming Catholic, which I never remember about politicians. I agree with the way you put it, though, Marc: the God card.
This is how he’s done things. It’s actually very similar to his resignation speech. He stands up before us to await our judgement, looking for the light, looking into the sun that’s blinding him.
Maybe he’ll get another chance. Seeing some of the comments, I must admit I’m imagining all the “good” McGreevey could do if we could somehow recruit him to some “noble” cause (I’m usually disgusted when I read about activist/McGreevey pairings). He’s nice. He’s religious and did everything a straight man was supposed to do. And boy did that not work out right. Very valuable material with the right audience. So I wonder.
posted by jo on
What about heterosexual men? Don’t they lie and cheat on their wives? Of course they do! There is no difference between what McGreevey did and what millions of straight guys continue to do on a daily basis to their wives. As for why people are being particularly venal towards McGreevey, it’s because he’s gay and proud of it. When a man says another man’s kiss “sent me through the roof”, it gives straight guys the willies. They hate it because it reminds them of their innate bisexuality. Consider that the same straight guys who criticize McGreevey are the same straight guys who go and buy magazines so that they can see the girl-on-girl layouts in them. There, you have it in one…the sheer hypocrisy of straight guys.
posted by Jorge on
If there is a hypocrisy, and maybe there is, it’s a little subtler than that. I have a whole list of similarly racy comments by straight male politicians in a collection called The 267 Stupidest Things Republicans Have Ever Said–The 267 Stupidest Things Democrats Have Ever Said. They’re in that book for a reason. I don’t think it’s a gay exclusive thing.
I think the distaste people have toward McGreevey is part of a broader distaste against unregulated sex that probably overreacts when it comes to gay men and is a little more lenient to straight men. Sure.
But compare Jim McGreevey to Bill Clinton (or whoever you like). Now, people still love Bill Clinton. But a lot of people also think he was a great president, something I don’t see for McGreevey. People do not approve of the Monica Lewinsky affair and he almost got removed from office over that.
Even if homosexuality biases people into a double standard, I would ask if it’s enough to matter compared to every other major league standard.
posted by Miguel on
GEORGE SAID:
“I find it contemptuous that he is using his orientation to sucker public pity.”
Ah, but George – this kind of crap works on the public – I mean he’s going on Oprah for God’s sake!!
This entire NJ situation is yet another stOOpid backward step to further marginalize ‘the gays’… throw it on the pile with the rest: Queer Eye, Will and Grace, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (don’t work!!!), Elton John/Eminem, Rosie… and all other shallow yet hateful depictions of who we are all supposed to be.
People are just dumb in general… and they certainly can’t seem to think for themseleves.
I think everyone here knows that GAY is not, never has been and never will be a choice… those poor suckers who decide to make a choice out of it (either by supressing it due to self-hatred, or going with some misguided queer flow because ‘everyone else thinks it’, or claiming to be bi-sexual) are simply getting themselves entangled in a vast, sticky web… no thank you.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Oh dear.
It looks like McGreevey has made the cover of the Advocate as the premiere example of the happiness of coming out:
http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid36606.asp
posted by Marc on
North, as if we couldn’t see that coming. I just wonder if their blatant bias will cloud the real annoyance of McGreevey’s coming out. On second thought, maybe The Advocate should stick to “happy and out” cover stories. If you have ever read any of their putrid “in depth” news stories, you know that magazine is usually a waste of perfectly good trees.
posted by Len on
As a lifelong NJ resident and a gay man, I deeply resented McGreevey’s leaving the impression that he was resigning because he was gay. He resigned because his world was crashing down around him and he was about to be investigated and possibly face jail time. The man used the gay community and the gay community is owed a HUGE apology. McGreevey was a corrupt, crooked governor who was unethical–and just so happened to be gay. People like Barney Frank, congressman from Massachusetts and Christine Quinn, City Council Speaker in New York are true heroes to the gay community.
I wouldn’t pay a penny to read McGreevey’s trash-rag. Unfortunately, sex sells and many people will buy the book. Since the man is totally incapable to telling the truth, how can you believe ANYTHING in that book?
posted by Bobby on
“sex sells and many people will buy the book”
—I won’t buy it, I’d rather order a pay per view porn for $12.95.
As for Barney Frank, I was dissapointed when he and his longtime boyfriend broke up. I’m also dissapointed by the rumors that he has a thing for male whores, even during his relationship with that Moses dude. Besides, Frank has a very annoying lisp.
As for Christine Quinn, the woman is crazy, she makes $100,000 a year in the government and she had the audacity of asking for a raise. I’ve seen job offers for a copywriter in New York that pay only $50,000 to $65,000.
So if a real job in yankee town pays crap, how the hell does a part time politician gets to ask for a raise?
posted by Mark on
It’s too bad that comments always have to degenerate to name-calling and personal insults. Christine Quinn and Barney Frank are making a contribution. Do we have to denigrate them over personal characteristics? If openly gay public servants can’t get any respect from within the gay community, how do we expect them and others who are making an effort to represent us to have any respect from the country at large? No, I don’t think that gay office holders should get a free pass just because they are gay, but when we stoop to criticize them for thing like their speech impediments, we lose respect for all of us.
posted by GCA on
Mark,
You are correct! It is difficult to have an open debate when one results to ridiculing personal characteristics of another. However, I disagree with your assessment which implies that in order to promote gays in public office, we should disregard certain personal characteristics because they may send the wrong signal and hurt the gay community. If part of being gay for some is certain characteristics that clearly distinguish them as gay, then so be it. Perhaps we should not ridicule such characteristics, but neither should we ignore them, as if they do not exist. It is natural for people to notice personal characteristics of others, and like it or not, often we judge based on them. Such judgment and ridicule can be either mild (i.e. joking) or extreme (i.e. vile disgust).
I see this ridicule all the time by straights and gays alike. In particular, Southerners and Italians are often ridiculed for their speech characteristics. The implication is that they are stupid, ignorant, and uneducated. Growing up on the East Coast and living in the San Francisco Bay Area for many years, I see such ridicule constantly?and very often by members of the gay community. I recall walking in San Francisco behind two lesbians as they ridiculed Bush. They ridiculed his swagger, his facial expressions, and his accent. I imagine that if someone ridiculed them in the same manner (they were quite un-feminine lesbians), they would be highly offended and cry homophobia.
My point is that gays should not be overly sensitive to such ridicule because it happens everyday to individuals in all walks of life; this includes such ridicule by left and right politicians of others (as very recent political history demonstrates). Such comments are usually meant to be in jest and not to impose serious threat. So until the gay community makes vast improvement with regard to treating personal characteristics of others with equal respect and dignity, I do not believe we have the right to expect a higher standard when it comes to remarks about gays, no matter how distasteful, especially if the comments are made in jest.
posted by George86 on
Is it possible for a politician to experience conversion?
In my comments [way] above, I came out quite strongly against Jim McGreevey’s integrity. I have to admit that when it comes to those in political office (whether in civil government or in the Church), I have the utmost cynicism, almost to the point of despair. As such, I don’t know what to make of McGreevey right now.
Here in NJ, in a Star Ledger report, McGreevey was quoted as saying that once he gets past the current book signings, he intends to drop out of public life. He says he will not return to politics, but will work within the private sector. Part of his work will be to assist gay persons in their journey toward self-acceptance.
I listened to four of his interviews (tv and radio — NPR’s was the best), and I decided to attend his book signing today. He certainly appears to be more at peace with himself, and there was no affect, no sense of pretense or dissemblance. Of course, in the circumstances of being surrounded by people who love and support him, one would expect him to be in the best of moods, and not on the defensive.
But I walked away from today’s book signing with a sense hope for this guy. If he stayed in political life, I think it would have been a disaster for him on the personal level (even if he was never forced out of the closet). But now that he is out, now that all the full extent of his political transgressions have been revealed and he has owned up to it, the exciting thing is that McGreevey now has the opportunity to make a contribution to society greater than he ever imagined.
MeGreevey begins his book with a powerful quote from Seneca: “When the mind is less amenable to instruction and cannot be cured by milder means, why should it not be helped by having a dose of poverty and disgrace and general ruin — dealing with evil by evil?”
If these words represent what is truly happening, if they represent a real change in McGreevey’s heart, and are not part of a campaign of fraud and deceit (pardon my cynicism!!), something tremendous may be afoot. Here’s hoping . . .
posted by Mark on
GCA, thanks for your comments. I don’t disagree, actually…I think that people should have the freedom to joke about others, comment on characteristics, and even be critical of others’ physical appearance…I just don’t think that a public forum is necessarily the place to do it. I am not free from having ridiculed or challenged others’ characteristics and lifestyles. Nor was I just speaking about gay people. I feel perfectly at will to make comments about the way a certain gay man walks, or how a certain straight woman dresses. I just don’t see any need for doing that outside of my private circle. it’s just good manners, and has nothing to do with gay or straight. I enjoy a good joke as much as anyone else, and do not consider myself self-righteous or superior. I just didn’t get a lot of sense out of someone writing in a public blog what they think about Barney Frank’s speech disorder. Say that you don’t care for him, or that you find him annoying, or that you dislike his manner of speaking. In private, ridicule away, if you must, but let’s have some measure of decorum when addressing serious topics in a publicly displayed running commentary.
posted by Bobby on
“Christine Quinn and Barney Frank are making a contribution. Do we have to denigrate them over personal characteristics?”
—We do, as public servants, they get special priviledges that the rest of us don’t get. How many of us get paid $25,000 to give a graduation speech at college? Not many I assume. You also have to remember that they are “public gays” which other people use to judge all gays. If they do wrong and we say nothing, we’re basically agreeing with them by our silence.
“If openly gay public servants can’t get any respect from within the gay community, how do we expect them and others who are making an effort to represent us to have any respect from the country at large?
—That’s BS, if they want respect, they have to earn it like the rest of us. Frank and Quinn have to deliver to the voters. Since Frank keeps getting reelected, that means he has enough respect. So throw a few stones in his directions, not only he can dodge them, but it helps him stay strong and not too arrogant.
“but when we stoop to criticize them for thing like their speech impediments, we lose respect for all of us.”
—I had a lisp as a kid, I saw a language therapist, and learned to talk like a normal person. You’re telling me that in a country we’re people are treated like subhuman for smoking and being fat people with lisps get a free pass? Give me a break.
“I just don’t see any need for doing that outside of my private circle. it’s just good manners, and has nothing to do with gay or straight.”
—Manners are like ethics, people define them in different terms. What’s ethical to one person is indecent to someone else. This is a political forum, this is the perfect place to bash and praise politicians.
Frank and Quinn have no problems bashing issues that are dear to me. Do you really expect me to give them a break?
You got to be more than gay to get a break from me.
posted by Mark on
Bobby–I simply choose to see the glass half full. But I vigorously defend your right to see it half empty. Looking for the good in people, however, is never a bad thing in most people’s books. It’s amazing the good you can find if you peel back the anger and cynicism which besets most of us.