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.
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.
Thanks! You just reminded me of a photospoof I want to do.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
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!
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.
Glad I could be of assistance to your never ending quest to photoshop for the ages.
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.
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.
(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.)
I'm not knocking what you've heard ... just reporting the spin.
Btw, The Trentonian head says "GET OUT NOW!"
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.
"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?
It is equally immoral to worship false gods -- although I'm presuming Rabbi Boteach's read might be "That's simply irreligious".
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.
"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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.