Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Tragedy Of The McGreevy Marriage (Rabbi Boteach's Thoughts On Bi-Sexuals And Marriage)
Worldnetdaily.com ^ | 08/14/03 | Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Posted on 08/13/2004 11:13:57 PM PDT by goldstategop

The Tragedy Of The McGreevey Marriage

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

A few months ago I wrote a stinging column criticizing Gov. James McGreevey for silence in the face of outrageous anti-Semitic outbreaks in New Jersey. McGreevey surprised me by calling personally to plead guilty to some of the points I made, and having spoken for over an hour, I was impressed by his humility and willingness to acknowledge error. He later invited me to a party he hosted at the Democratic National Convention, where I said to his wife, who was holding his hand, that I had always been impressed with the quiet dignity she brought to the role of New Jersey's first lady, and that she was a great asset to her husband. Rather than acknowledge the compliment, she stared back blankly and I was left feeling that I had somehow caused offense.

I could not have imagined at that time the turmoil that was going on in the life of this woman, whose marriage would create such explosive news just two weeks later.

I have counseled several gay men who married women only to reveal to them the truth of their sexuality years into the marriage and after children had been born. In every case, the news was not only devastating to the wives in question, but created lasting anger, even hatred. When a man outs himself as gay, the person who suffers the most is his wife. The husband is often treated as a hero, courageously liberating himself from a lie imposed on him by a hypocritical and intolerant society. But his wife is treated as a naïve dupe, and in the case of the wife of a successful politician like James McGreevey, she is seen as cold and calculating, prepared to remain in a fraudulent marriage in order to share power.

But the truth is that these women suffer enormously. I have had many women crying in my office as they related the pain of discovering that they could never be attractive to their husbands, and how that horrible fact undermined their very identity as women. One woman told me that after her husband had revealed to her that he was only able to perform with her sexually by thinking about men, she had thought that night of killing herself.

These tragic circumstances are the direct result of America's irrational and confused response to homosexuality, with extremists dominating the national debate. While I am opposed to gay marriage, I am equally opposed to simplistic religious formulations that would advocate that all gay men can find a home within heterosexual marriage, so long as they make enough of an effort to change.

The most important point about homosexuality is that it is a religious rather than a moral sin. The Bible clearly distinguishes between sins against God (religious) versus sins against man (moral), and neatly divides the Ten Commandments into two tablets reflecting that division. Sins like not worshipping idols and honoring the Sabbath are on the first tablet, while sins like refraining from theft and murder are on the second. Adultery is both a religious and a moral sin because it involves breaking the holy covenant of marriage, as well as deceiving one's spouse. In this sense, McGreevey's having cheated on his wife is a far more serious moral sin than having cheated with a man. Homosexuality, by contrast, which involves consensual sex and no deception, is only a religious sin and not a moral one. Therefore, those who label homosexuality as "immoral" would likewise have to argue that those who don't go to church are immoral, when in fact they are simply irreligious.

Remembering this clear-cut distinction is the key to ending homophobia in America while simultaneously upholding the sacred covenant of heterosexual marriage.

There are two kinds of gay men, those who, amid strong homosexual inclination, still harbor an attraction to women, and those who harbor none. Studies show that the overwhelming number of gay men are, like James McGreevey, in the former category. They are capable of having sex with a woman, and indeed 90 percent of gay men admit to having done so. It is for this reason that society should not legalize gay marriage and elevate it to the same plane as heterosexual marriages, because there is then no incentive for these men, who are in essence bisexual, to make an effort to direct their erotic focus toward women and raise their heterosexual attraction above their same-sex one.

Even fully heterosexual men must learn sexual discipline within marriage by being monogamous amidst their natural attraction to many women. And there is nothing cruel in encouraging men who have an attraction to both sexes to try and focus their sexual desire on women rather than on men. Indeed, gay men who are attracted to women usually make much better husbands and fathers since they are usually softer, gentler, more domesticated and more nurturing than their heterosexual counterparts. Indeed, if men with attraction to both sexes are not encouraged to explore their heterosexual attraction, we are condemning millions of women to lives of loneliness without husbands since the much higher proportion of gay men to lesbians creates a strong numerical imbalance between the sexes.

The potential for tragedy, as in the case of the McGreevey marriage, is when we so severely stigmatize homosexuality – and there is not a single outward homosexual who has been elected to high office – that we force bisexual men to completely hide and deny their homosexual side so that they have no one to talk to and wrestle successfully with their nature. They are forced to hide their attractions fully and utterly. They cannot discuss them with priests, Rabbis, friends, and certainly not with their wives. The attraction can therefore only manifest itself in the form of a deceptive and aberrant relationship, as was the case with James McGreevey.

To be sure, I am not prepared to admit that James McGreevey made a mistake in marrying. Since he did so twice, and had children with both wives, I assume that he was not completely gay and had some actionable attraction to women. But the fact that he could not share how he struggled with a homosexual nature, in a political climate where homosexuality is toxic, meant that he was doomed to living an ignoble lie.

But then there are men who find the idea of sex with a woman positively repulsive. Religious individuals and moralists who encourage gay men with absolutely no attraction to women to enter into the heterosexual institution of marriage are not only unrealistic, they are cruel, cold and heartless. The practice is immoral and deeply destructive to the marriage's participants, as well as to the children who follow. For these men, civil unions should be legally available as a viable alternative, and I find it absurd that it is religious conservatives who are the main obstacles to gay civil unions.

At all levels, society should be encouraging fidelity, commitment, and faithfulness in relationships, and seek to curb the rampant culture of casual, commitment-free sex that has so reduced love and romance to fantasy and fiction.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Front Page News; Miscellaneous; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: bisexual; isronpreagannext; marriage; mcgreevey; rshmuleyboteach; sin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-72 next last
To: goldstategop
One other point:

The potential for tragedy, as in the case of the McGreevey marriage, is when we so severely stigmatize homosexuality – and there is not a single outward homosexual who has been elected to high office – that we force bisexual men to completely hide and deny their homosexual side so that they have no one to talk to and wrestle successfully with their nature.

It depends on what you mean by high office -- there are several openly gay congressman, including a Republican one. And if, heaven forbid, Kerry gets elected president, I wouldn't be surprised to see Barney Frank elected senator.

41 posted on 08/14/2004 9:50:14 AM PDT by NYCVirago
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Scourge of Yazid

Thanks! You just reminded me of a photospoof I want to do.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


42 posted on 08/14/2004 9:56:22 AM PDT by Slings and Arrows (Am Yisrael Chai!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: dead

To try to understand these perverts is a waste of time. He is dispicable, and needs to get out now! He is a deciever and never should hold any office again. His wife should waste no time to get the hell out and get a real man!


43 posted on 08/14/2004 10:00:09 AM PDT by Old anti feminist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: dead; wideawake; Hildy
Dead wrote:

At least twenty people on this forum alone knew he was gay and knew about the Israeli boyfriend whom he was employing. We've been posting about it for years.

I know dozens of people who knew about it from all sorts of varied sources (mine came from a big Republican donor, who said it was openly discussed among many in the party for years, and I also knew about it from a minor player in his campaign organization, where it was known by all. And a Port Authority police sargeant told me years ago that it was common knowledge amongst all cops in the state.)

My standard for something being an open secret is if I've heard about it. And boy, did I hear about McGreevey being gay on this board, in very specific detail, a long time before he officially came out. Heck, when all that was known that McGreevey was going to resign due to a personal matter, wideawake posted very specific details about McGreevey's relationship with Cipel, before the media had issued anything about it.

Anyhow, my point here is that McGreevey's wife had to know he was gay. It seems like everybody else in the state knew! It's like Clinton's womanizing, where Hillary Clinton apparently was the only person in America who pretended to be shocked that he was fooling around with Monica.

And there's one simple way to tell that Mrs. McGreevey knew the score: is there any woman in America who would literally stand by her man and hold his hand when he told the world he preferred men to her, if she didn't already know he was gay? Nobody is that much of a masochist.

44 posted on 08/14/2004 10:00:48 AM PDT by NYCVirago
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Slings and Arrows
No problem.

Glad I could be of assistance to your never ending quest to photoshop for the ages.

45 posted on 08/14/2004 10:03:33 AM PDT by The Scourge of Yazid (Don't want you to hate me. I want you to know you educate me. And make me wanna say, You're bitchin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: dead
The word on talk radio now is that McGreevey's homosexuality was known to many on the local scene and that Dina, if not literally hired by McGreevey, went into the relationship with her eyes wide open. It's natural to be skeptical about gossip, but I'm inclined to believe it in this case. You know more about it than I do, and I suspect a lot more will be revealed in the next few weeks or months.

Power, fame, and the high life can be enticing enough for some people to want to latch on to a "rising political star." The McGreevey's aren't the first couple (Clintons, Huffingtons, etc.) to go this mercenary route.

It's certainly a strange story, though. It's as if someone dug up the old corrupt political machines of Tweed, Hague, and Tammany, and crossbred them with ancient Roman vices and excesses. It makes one wonder what old-time disgraced politicians like Jimmy Walker, Earl Long, or Wilbur Mills would think if they could meet McGreevey.

46 posted on 08/14/2004 10:06:59 AM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
"But then there are men who find the idea of sex with a woman positively repulsive. Religious individuals and moralists who encourage gay men with absolutely no attraction to women to enter into the heterosexual institution of marriage are not only unrealistic, they are cruel, cold and heartless. "

This is NOT what organizations like Exodus International do. In fact I don't know of ANY reputable organizations that help gays straighten up, that don't get to the ROOT PROBELM. Fabricating an EXTREME still doesn't justify gay "marriage" or gay "unions".




"The practice is immoral and deeply destructive to the marriage's participants, as well as to the children who follow. For these men, civil unions should be legally available as a viable alternative, and I find it absurd that it is religious conservatives who are the main obstacles to gay civil unions. "

There is NO healthy reason in the world to pervert "marriage" or create "unions" to accommodate the emotional needs of an abnormal perversion - being gay. It is precisely because God, the Judeo Christian God stated CLEARLY that being gay is an ABOMINATION to Him and that is WHY "religious conservatives" are opposed to gay "marriage" or "civil unions". You don't have to be "religious" either. All it takes is alittle common sense to see that NOTHING good will come out of legitimizing gay "unions" or "marriages".

In fact it will be devastating if gay "unions" or "marriages" become legal BECAUSE the root of gay behavior is EMOTIONAL. The courts will be overwhelmed with "gay" lawsuits. These people are not emotionally stable to begin with and they do NOT normally remain together for long. They are social nightmares as well as health care nightmares as they continue to be promiscuous and have YOU pick up the tab for all their social diseases.
McGreedy put the state of New Jersey at risk by paying off his ex-lover as a Homeland Security head. He had NO experience of qualifications for this job. It just goes to show the desperateness of McGreedy. As for his "wife" he had a baby with her - to look good? He just ruined the life of a baby girl and his wife. Need I mention that this is his SECOND marriage with kids? And the whole time the LIBERAL media HIDE this from the people of New Jersey. In a nut shell, homos don't care about anyone else but themselves and will stop at nothing to satisfy their irrational emotional attraction to same sex.
47 posted on 08/14/2004 10:08:49 AM PDT by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
These tragic circumstances are the direct result of America's irrational and confused response to homosexuality, with extremists dominating the national debate

Brilliant point; this gives people like the Clintons and Democrats more "political leverage" than they would have if they could only use traditional civil rights subjects or less vocal partners in their deceptions.

48 posted on 08/14/2004 10:12:53 AM PDT by alrea
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: x
Jimmy Walker:

(Smooths fine, pressed, expensive business suit. Takes out cigar. Steals X's wallet, then bribes other people on thread not to report the crime to police.)

He's a liar, but I like 'im.

49 posted on 08/14/2004 10:15:14 AM PDT by The Scourge of Yazid (Don't want you to hate me. I want you to know you educate me. And make me wanna say, You're bitchin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: dead
I hope to post the Trenton Tines article on the wives (Kari and Dani) tonight, unless someone does before me. Here's the headline, dead, "Wives steadfastly pro-McGreevey".

I'm not knocking what you've heard ... just reporting the spin.

Btw, The Trentonian head says "GET OUT NOW!"

50 posted on 08/14/2004 10:15:35 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
Indeed, gay men who are attracted to women usually make much better husbands and fathers since they are usually softer, gentler, more domesticated and more nurturing than their heterosexual counterparts.

The Rabbi runs off the track here. Would a lesbian mother be more nurturing rabbi? I'd rather have a father role model without the stereotypical feminine traits.

51 posted on 08/14/2004 10:16:09 AM PDT by alrea (read charts not headlines)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

"The most important point about homosexuality is that it is a religious rather than a moral sin."...... "Homosexuality, by contrast, which involves consensual sex and no deception, is only a religious sin and not a moral one"

I'm sorry I'm confused. I thought sins against God were far more serious than sins against man. If this is so, then how on earth can he say homosexuality is ONLY a religious sin?


52 posted on 08/14/2004 10:27:27 AM PDT by mupcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mupcat
Ignore that. It is confusing. It is NOT "simply irrelegious" but not immoral to engage in homosexuality.

It is equally immoral to worship false gods -- although I'm presuming Rabbi Boteach's read might be "That's simply irreligious".

53 posted on 08/14/2004 10:30:34 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

What a bunch of gobbledygook:

"The most important point about homosexuality is that it is a religious rather than a moral sin."

False

"The Bible clearly distinguishes between sins against God (religious) versus sins against man (moral), and neatly divides the Ten Commandments into two tablets reflecting that division. Sins like not worshipping idols and honoring the Sabbath are on the first tablet, while sins like refraining from theft and murder are on the second. Adultery is both a religious and a moral sin because it involves breaking the holy covenant of marriage, as well as deceiving one's spouse. In this sense, McGreevey's having cheated on his wife is a far more serious moral sin than having cheated with a man. Homosexuality, by contrast, which involves consensual sex and no deception, is only a religious sin and not a moral one. Therefore, those who label homosexuality as "immoral" would likewise have to argue that those who don't go to church are immoral, when in fact they are simply irreligious. "

Sin is sin. It is a SIN to have same sex and it defies God and His reasons for creating a male and a female to be attracted to one another. McGreedy having same sex is an ABOMINATION to God. It also is NOT true that this was "consentual sex". The guy McGreedy harassed could be suing him and there WAS GREAT DECEPTION going on. Homosexuality is IMMORAL as well as a sin. It is an IMMORAL SIN against God even though it is not listed in the Ten Commandments. Whether one goes to church or not is NOT the issue and to suggest your analogy is comparing apples to oranges.

WND is an ify source for credibility.

It is quite clear in the OLD testament, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach that homosexuality is an abomination to God.

Lev.18
[22] Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination

God went out of His way to state that. Not all sins are listed in the Ten Commandments.

Adultery is also clearly listed as wrong.

I'm wondering if this Rabbi is gay. What he is trying to do is compartMENTALIZE homosexuality so that it is somehow acceptable when it never has been and never will be in God's eyes.


54 posted on 08/14/2004 10:37:42 AM PDT by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mupcat

"I'm sorry I'm confused. I thought sins against God were far more serious than sins against man. If this is so, then how on earth can he say homosexuality is ONLY a religious sin? "

You're not confused. This Rabbi is and he is an advocate for cvil unions. He is purposely trying to compartMENTALIZE sins according to his own misguided standards rather than what the Old Testament states. He's a leftie.


55 posted on 08/14/2004 10:40:47 AM PDT by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: independentmind
I have a female friend who found out that a male high school friend of hers (her prom date, actually) was gay. They had remainded friendly through their 20s and 30s and she was quite upset when he announced his "coming out" to her.
Back in high school I was seeing a boy that a lot of the girls I knew thought was so cute and slightly chastised me when broke up with him. At the time I couldn't understand why I did it, either. I just had the weirdest feeling that something was not quite right with him. A year later rumors (that turned out to be true) were going around that he was homosexual.
56 posted on 08/14/2004 10:44:42 AM PDT by HungarianGypsy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: mupcat
It's not you who is confused it is this male parading around as a Rabbi that is confused.

It is quite clear in the OLD testament, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach that homosexuality is an abomination to God.

Lev.18

[22] Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination

God went out of His way to state that homosexuality is an affront to Him personally. As you know he created a woman for man and NOT a man for a man. Man and woman are designed for each other. To violate that design and purpose is a slap in the face of God. He never intended a same sex relationship. It is immoral and a sin in the eyes of God and this is not a "religious sin". It is a sin against God.

The Ten Commandments are also sins and immoral. I can't believe that this "Rabbi" would try to compartmentalize some as "religious sins" and some as "immoral". This Rabbi has an agenda of advocating civil unions for homosexuals, hence the silly obfuscation of "religious" v.s. "moral" sins.

All sins are immoral. Having said all that don't believe for a nano second that I walk on water. I don't however I do know what sin is and what offends God. Homosexuality, for anyone with any knowledge of God's Word KNOWS that this is an ABOMINATION to Him. I dare say that homosexuality may be WORSE than breaking the Ten Commandments.

Be wary of World Net Daily ... they used to be a credible source ... as you can see ... that is not always the case.

57 posted on 08/14/2004 11:02:19 AM PDT by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: nmh

"It's not you who is confused it is this male parading around as a Rabbi that is confused."

Thanks nmh, for the confirmation about the Rabbi---must admit I had to read his explanation more than once and then I still wasn't sure what I was seeing.

Guess I'm interested in this subject more than many since a member of our family is gay and in a committed relationship for over 45 years. Retired military to boot.


58 posted on 08/14/2004 11:53:24 AM PDT by mupcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: dead

I wasn't talking about him being Gay. I was talking about your assertion that his wife knew, and was in it for the power, or something. They have kids. He was obviously sleeping with her (at least twice). I say lay off the wife. She's a victim of his craziness too.


59 posted on 08/14/2004 12:03:15 PM PDT by Hildy (John Edwards is to Dick Cheney what Potsie was to the Fonz.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Hildy
You obviously have a reading comprehension problem.

The clear point of my post, which every other person who commented on it apparently got, was that everybody who knew him knew he was gay. He didn't even try very hard to hide it.

Your contention that his wife somehow didn't get the memo is absolutely absurd. Ludicrous, even.

60 posted on 08/14/2004 12:12:49 PM PDT by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-72 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson