Monday, April 23, 2007

A GAY AMERICAN, DAMMIT!!!

What does Jim McGreevey, A GAY AMERICAN, think we'll believe? Anything, to judge from the latest court filings in his ugly divorce from his second wife, Dina Matos McGreevey.
Although it is clear that the Defendant knew of my sexual orientation before our marriage, she chose to either ignore it or block it out of her mind, even when questioned by her friends.
This isn't directly relevant to how secular law works, but even under the Canon Law of the viciously homophobic Catholic Church, the most persistent homosexual attractions do not, in itself, create grounds for an annulment. In fact, I know that secular law doesn't say homosexual persons cannot marry, because they do all the time (to persons they are eligible to marry, meaning not their siblings, not second and third "spouses" or not persons of the same sex -- the same rule that applies to heterosexuals). So his bringing this up, even in rebuttal, seems more like a ploy in the hope that the judge watches a lot of Oprah. The court filing continues:
On the offhand chance she wasn't paying attention, I AM A GAY AMERICAN. She is in deep denial.
Oh dear. If I could advise his lawyers, I'd tell them to cut the ALL-CAPS. It makes you sound like a whiny bitch. I'd also want to link to a river in Egypt. And not to refer to her. Now divorce is as divorce does -- it's always messy, usually ugly and never makes anyone look good. But one of the downsides of the closet, regardless of anything else (and closeted-me accepts this downside), is that it makes anything you say about others' contemporaneous knowledge of you impossible to prove. After all, even if you did tell someone, there could only ever be your word for it, because the whole point of the closet is for there to be no objective evidence that (unwanted) others could see. Hoist by his own petard I'd say.

Still ... I don't know about you, but if there's a human being in the world who has a right to say "you're not gay, you're bi," it's your ex-wife. Or was their five-year-old daughter history's second virgin birth? Actually, it'd have to be the third, given that McGreevey had a child with his first wife. And from what I hear ... outside the world of 19th-century novels and 20th-century movies, once is usually not enough. Not that most men complain ... a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do.

And what is McGreevey's obsession with being A GAY AMERICAN. After all, if there's nothing shameful about gay sex or homosexuality on the usual contemporary grounds, then what can there be shameful or denial-worthy about either heterosexual sex or bisexuality? Why is McGreevey so eager and willing to deny the obvious. I think I'll coin a new phrase to apply to case studies like McGreevey: Bi Panic Defense (cf.)

I also have to wonder about a few other things.
  1. Will "Jim McGreevey began his gay affair while his wife was in a bedridden pregnancy with an unborn daughter whom he didn't want" become as much part of political lore as "Newt Gingrich served divorce papers on his wife as she was dying of cancer" has?
  2. Will "Jim McGreevey used the phrase 'look like white trash' as a disparaging term with some meaning distinct from black trash or Asian trash" become as big a story as "Don Imus uses 'nappy-headed hos' as a disparaging term" has?
  3. Will "Jim McGreevey exposes kids to life-sized posters of nude male models" become as culture-transforming as "Clarence Thomas talked about pubic hair on Coke cans" has. Maybe if he had a son and exposed him to life-sized posters of female nude models, the boy could grow up to join the Duke lacrosse team and become a symbol of "white (trash?) male objectification of women." Still, maybe there's some good here, in the detail that Mrs. McGreevey is saying that one way he sexually abuses their daughter is by having her sleep with him and his boyfriend. Father Martin Fox has wondered whether children should habitually sleep with their parents because it might interfere with ... you know. So maybe that'd be for the best after all ... nothing can cool your ardor for hot beefcake boytoy like a bawling 5-year-old girl, let me tell you.
Somehow ... I doubt all three. After all, the Mainstream media thinks "Thou shalt not make Members of Oppressed Groups (like GAY AMERICANS) look bad" is one of the 5 Commandments that Moses dropped on the ground.

3 comments:

bill bannon said...

The Mrs. has very good grounds for an annullment in that the Mr. surely seems to have lacked the minimum moral maturity for making a vow. What the process seeks to determine is whether God rejected the vow at the time of the wedding whether or not the local Church accepted the vow in ignorance of what was going on inside of the male in this case.....due to exacty this type of inability to be moral in serious matters.

Martin said...

Great post - came he from 'Crunchy Con'.

-if there is no free will no soul no personal evil but only structural societal evil - the most powerful nation therefore, must be the most evil, and minority groups within it by nature of mere size are (paradoxically)automatically sinned against?


-Martin from Australia

Susan said...

Bad behavior is bad behavior, regardless of who does it. I think that's your point, and I totally agree.

If it was bad behavior for Newt Gingrich to serve divorce papers on his wife as she was dying of cancer, it's also bad behavior for Jim McGreevey to begin a gay affair (or a straight affair, no difference) while his wife was in a bedridden pregnancy with an unborn daughter whom he didn't want. (Or at any other time, by the way.)

Just as gays should not be condemned for behavior which would be perfectly OK if done by a straight person, so also what is blameworthy if you're straight is also blameworthy if you're gay.

In full disclosure, I've been fighting this battle with a lesbian daughter. No, if it wasn't OK for her straight sibs to bring sex partners home (WHAT??!?) then it isn't OK for her either, too bad, and since I can't personally tell right now who is a potential sex partner and who isn't, well then NO OVERNIGHT GUESTS.

Of course I'd prefer that none of my children had sex outside of marriage, but I can't control that. I can however attempt to control what goes on in my own house.