Tuesday, August 17, 2004

Jerry Falwell is going to have a field day with this one...

I previously blogged about the whole shebang with Jersey's sorry excuse for a governor. Don't picture me a bigot -- I hated him before he came out of the closet. Believe me, he's got a lot more hidden in his closet than his sexuality.

Today, I found via Google News this commentary by a homosexual writer in California, which I think is, quite simply put, brilliant.

The writer, Steve Yuhas, has the same beef with McGreevey that I have: he was unfaithful to his wife.

As a side-note, this past week at the Shabbos table, there were people who thought that McGreevey was completely ruined. No, I said, he just saved his whole damn career. I explained to the family with whom my wife and I were eating that McGreevey was now going to become the darling of the left, and will go on to become a gay activist, and will likely makes lots of moolah on the speaking circuit. What do you know? I wasn't the only one who figured this: Yuhas thinks the same thing.

Choice quotes from the commentary:

From all that we've learned to this point, including the fact that according to Cipel's attorney negotiations were in the works up until minutes before McGreevey's news conference, it is safe to assume that McGreevey announced his sexuality because he knew Cipel would either go public or file a sexual harassment complaint against him. I'm baffled by gay organizations who describe coming out while staring down the barrel of a gun as a courageous act. There are closeted people serving in all walks of life, but to make heroes out of men and women who lie their way to the top and come out under pressure is akin to praising a thief who admits stealing after seeing that the deed has been caught on film.

Most interesting in all of this is that on the same day gay men and lesbians were glued to their televisions cheering McGreevey as he admitted his homosexuality and adultery, they were simultaneously preparing for an evening of vigils that were organized to protest the California Supreme Court's ruling that San Francisco did not have the right to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and that the licenses already issued were void.

So, they fight for the right to get married, but cheer when someone commits adultery?

It is exactly this type of hypocrisy that fuels the wacky Falwell-types on the right in their crusade to discriminate against homosexuals.

For the record, I am a libertarian. I dislike homosexuality, but I'm not going to be up in arms against homosexuals. The only thing about the homosexual agenda that I find objectional is their drive to get special status under the law. If a person doesn't want to hire a homosexual on account of his sexuality, I have no problem with that.

And, before you ask the question, dear reader, the answer is NO: I do not support the laws that prevent employers from discriminating against me on account of me being openly Jewish. If an employer is an anti-semite, and doesn't want to hire Jews, no one should hold a gun to his head and tell him to do so. He who does not hire me will have to deal with a competitor who will hire me and benefit from my productivity, just the same as an employer who discriminates against homosexuals will have to deal with a competitor who will hire homosexuals and benefit from their productivity.

It will not take much time before McGreevey is on a speaking tour of college campuses or out signing copies of his autobiography. It is almost certain that he will be invited to be the grand marshal of a gay parade next year. But if gays and lesbians were truly concerned about marriage and truly desired the privilege of entering into the most important of unions, you would think they'd be less enamored by McGreevey. The pressure on McGreevey to leave office before Nov. 15 continues, and if gay activists were wise, they would join the chorus.

I couldn't agree more.


At 4:29 PM, Blogger Cpl Ness said...

I like your attitude. There are some very interesting points there.

At 12:28 PM, Blogger On Second Thought said...

You wrote "So, they [gays] fight for the right to get married, but cheer when someone commits adultery?"

I'm pretty certain I know more gay people than you do. I don't know one gay person who isn't disgusted by McGreevey. Some may cheer McGreevey's coming out. I estimate that most gays don't. See my post for Friday, August 13, 2004
“This above all; to thine own self be true”
at: http://on2ndthought.blogspot.com/

Don't believe everything you hear about McGreevey becoming gays' cause célèbre. Most of us are pretty disqusted by him.

At 6:39 PM, Blogger Yid said...

I was referring to the activists, not the community at large.

At 11:05 PM, Blogger Jesse Ogden said...

Love your blog, I'm definitely bookmarking it. Keep up the good work.

Also, speaking of homosexual writers from California, did you perchance to see this article written by Justin Raimondo on the subject?

At 8:03 AM, Blogger no milk said...

i'm sure you agree that homosexuality and adultery are two different things. there are many hetersosexual politicians who commit adultery and that in itself is what is reprehensible.

the way many people make it seem here is that homosexuals are adulterers, that it is the homosexuality that is causing the adultery here, which is certainly not the case. people cheat because they are cheaters. mcgreevey could certainly have divorced himself before starting a relationship with another man.

as for the lying, well, when you live in a society that is at odds with your homosexuality, you are forced to lie about it. for many people, their homosexuality has become the cause of their deaths: matthew shephard, gwen arau, thousands others, including the ones in the holocaust.

i do not condone what mcgreevey did and his coming out, for me, is one act that has no bearing on his adultery. imagine if you will a society where homos are at the same standing as heteros. do you think that you would even be talking about anything other than the adultery?

also, in your comments about special rights, specially in the workplace, nobody asked me about my sexuality when i applied for a job, in fact it is nobody's business what i do in the bedroom or who i choose to consort with. if i don't wear a feather boa, sing showtunes or start hitting on co-workers of the same sex, why should i lose my job just because somebody outside of work sees me with my boyfrend? heteros reveal their sexuality in very overt ways in the workplace, nobody tells them to suppress it. yet this is what homosexuals do everyday because we are forced to.

yes, if i had the luxury of choosing my employers, most certainly, i would also pick one which i could be open. but you know what? for most people, they have no choice but to be employed by their local employers. they cannot move to san francisco or a queer-friendly city. these are the people who need protection from discrimination. they have the ability to do the job and do the job well. their relationships, their loved ones, their families shouldn't be the cause for their being discriminated against.


Post a Comment

<< Home