When New Jersey Governor James McGreevey came annouced he would resign his office in November he shocked his state and the nation. But when he also admitted that he was gay and had carried out extramarital affairs with other men, even jaded journalists were stunned by the bombshell.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/12/mcgreevey.nj/

Meanwhile on the West Coast on the same day, the California Supreme Court unanimously ruled the mayor of San Francisco had overstepped his authority by sanctioning almost 4,000 marriages by gays and lesbians. The court voted 5-2 in a separate decision to void those marriages.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/08/12/samesex....e.ap/index.html

McGreevey, who is married and has two children, said, Throughout my life, I have grappled with my own identity, who I am. As a young child, I often felt ambivalent about myself, in fact, confused.

McGreevey added: do not believe that God tortures any person simply for its own sake. I believe that God enables all things to work for the greater good. And this, the 47th year of my life, is arguably too late to have this discussion. But it is here, and it is now.

At a point in every person's life, one has to look deeply into the mirror of one's soul and decide one's unique truth in the world, not as we may want to see it or hope to see it, but as it is.

And so my truth is that I am a gay American. And I am blessed to live in the greatest nation with the tradition of civil liberties, the greatest tradition of civil liberties in the world, in a country which provides so much to its people.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/12/...ript/index.html

The political implications of McGreevey's outing and resignation aside, I am uncertain whether he is a victim, hero or villian. On one hand it troubles me that he has lived a lie and betrayed his wife, family and friends by his illicit behavior, but on the other never having lived as a closeted gay man in denial of my own sexuality, I have to ask myself: How would I respond if I were in the same situation as James McGreevey?

What killed the career of James McGreevey? The infidelity? The homosexuality? The lying?

A poll on CNN asked the question would you vote for a gay politiician? 62 percent said yes and 38 percent said no (as if Americans haven't been voting for gay politicians since forever). It is encouraging to know that a person can be open about their sexual orientation and most people don't care, but the fact remains in the case of gay marriage that it is an issue that most Americans are unwilling to support.

The question for debate: Has the forced outing and resignation of Governor James McGreevey and the voiding of 4000 gay marriages in California signs that the cause of gay rights has been seriously damaged?

Has the forced outing and resignation of Governor James McGreevey and the voiding of 4000 gay marriages in California signs that the cause of gay rights has been seriously damaged?

Eh beat me too it...had my topic all ready to go .

The whole Governor McGreevey situation really has no affect on the 'gay rights' issue because it is more of a personal matter and not something activists can lobby behind.

On the other hand, the ruling in California really sets the movement in the wrong direction. Whether or not you agree with homosexual marriage...we all know it was the correct ruling as the issue over marriage was clearly stated in the state constitution. The mayor over-stepped his powers and did an illegal action.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,128818,00.html



That is the real truth and it is a shame that Mayor Newsom took advantage of gay people in this regard. He used them to get votes. Newsom is looked on as a hero in the gay community and has 'earned' the gay vote in San Fran which is pretty good if you are running for mayor. I am sorry to see that almost nobody realizes what this guy did. Instead of being hailed as a fraud who was only out there for votes, he comes off as a hero.

Well, maybe I'm just an eternal optimist, but I tend to look at the bright side of both of these events.

In the case of James McGreevey, I was just happy to see the holder of a major political office come out of the closet. Of course, it would have been better if it hadn't happened in quite these circumstances. The overall effect on the gay rights movement will be, I think, minimal, and maybe even slightly positive.

As far as the California legal case goes, the outcome was, as lederuvdapac notes, inevitable. However, rather than seeing it as a poltical ploy, I see it as an act of civil disobedience. Newsome defied a wicked law, with the intention of pointing out its wickedness. I think he succeeded. Chalk this one up as a moral victory for gay rights.

I think gay rights in this country are taking a step backwards, but that this will only be temporary. I see it as more of the politics of fear used by Karl Rove and the Bush Campaign, (with this and other issues) to scare people and use that tactic to win an election.

In other words, it has more to do with the atmosphere the Bush administration has created than specifics involving Gov. McGreevey or the voiding of the 4000 marriages.

Although we are in a conservative period in our history, I see signs that the political pendulum is moving back to the left. It's not moving fast enough for me, but I sense it moving. It’s never if the pendulum swings in politics—only when.

The following statement by Kerry's spokesman dealt with the defeated constitutional ban on gay marriage.



http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/24/....bush.marriage/

Well, in the case of McGreevey, this is quite possibly alot more to this story. His sudden resignation adds some weight to the speculation. We will have to wait and see what surfaces.

The man in question is rumored to be the same man McGreevey tried to have run Homeland security in New Jersey. This man is not an American Citizen and is a suspected Israeli agent. This man was later given a state job and after leaving that job continued to receive his salary of $110.000.00 a year. This man is possibly planning on bringing suit against McGreevey / New Jersey for sexual harassment.

Now that is all RUMOR, who knows what is true, we'll have to wait and see what if anything more comes out. I personally believe there has to be more to this story as a gay extramarital affair simply is not enough for someone to resign from political office these days.



As for California, the Mayor acted by ignoring the law. This case couldn't have gone another way.

In my opinion, neither of these cases dramatically harm the gay rights movement, because there are issues here besides the rights of gay Americans.

What really bothers me, and what has set the movement back and could kill it depending on the results of the inevitable federal legal challenge was the vote in Missouri to add an Amendment to the Missouri Constitution to define Marriage as only between a man and a woman. That vote, I am ashamed to say, won by a 2 to 1 margin.

If this amendment is challenged in federal court, and the court rules that this is a states rights issue and not a civil rights issue then the gay rights movement to secure the rights, responsiblities, and protections of marriage will be severely damaged. However, if the court rules it a matter of civil rights then this vote in Missouri could very well lead to a win on this fight for gay America. I am hoping for the latter.

Has the forced outing and resignation of Governor James McGreevey and the voiding of 4000 gay marriages in California signs that the cause of gay rights has been seriously damaged?

I think that gay rights are moving backwards in the short term, but forward in the long term. It's just a bunch of dinosaurs trying to fight the meteor, and while they might get some ground here or there, I believe that freedom and rights will come out on top over moralistic oppression and cultism.

I also would like to say that I am sick to my stomach of people complaining about sexual harassment. Was it rape? No. Attempted rape? Nope. Assault? Negative.

"But, but... he made me feel uncomfortable....so I'm suing!"

But, but... people who sue for sexual harassment make ME feel uncomfortable.

What people sue each other over in the U.S. is just ridiculous.

Has the forced outing and resignation of Governor James McGreevey and the voiding of 4000 gay marriages in California signs that the cause of gay rights has been seriously damaged?

In the former case, it's hard to say until all the facts are in - which they may never be. If it was a consensual affair which Cipel is exploiting for gain, it should motivate gays themselves to see that they are not left exposed to this sort of extortion in the future - as they have so often been in the past. If it turns out that McGreevey was using his positin to make unwanted advances, it doesn't bode well for the governor himself, but - apart from giving fodder to opponents of gay rights - will probably not have much impact on their forward motion.

The California case, on the other hand, should do nothing but galvanize the gay community and its supporters. Mayor Newsome engaged in an act of civil disobedince to draw attention to unfair legislation - and, while the outcome was no doubt inevitable under existing state law, succeeding in highlighting the issue brilliantly. As I heard some pundit remark recently, the sight of a bunch of frumpy middle-aged lesbians on courthouse steps has gone a long way to counteract the years of news reports which highlight the few gay people who turn up in leather and drag pride festivals.

I voted for "moving forward", however slowly - and despite the strenuous efforts of the current administration to pander to minority views and create non-existent "wedge issues".

What we are seeing is the long and drawn out death of legal discrimination based on gender preference. The California court decision was correct based on state law. The next question is does that state law violate the 14th Amendment of our constitution. Here I see gays not being allowed to marry as no different then interracial marriage being banned. The ultimate court decision will almost certainly throw out state laws discriminating against homosexuals.

McGreevey, apparently, was a corrupt politiucian who put the security of his state in jeopardy by hiring his lover in a role he was not qualified for. Proves gays too can be corrupt. Think I already knew that. He is not somebody gays should spend any political capital on defending.

Wallace was not on them schoolhouse steps because racial segregation was increasing.

We have gone from having a constitution which only gave land-owning white males equal protection under the law to a nation where now every straight American has equal protection under the law. I predict within a decade gays will be given the same rights as every other American.



Don't see an exception for gays anywhere in there.

A year ago, had you told most gay people that this issue would be seriously debated on the national stage, they would have called you delusional.

"In 20 years... in 50 years, perhaps," they would have told you.

Now, national politicians are saying that Gay Marriage is way too much to ask, but howsa bout civil unions? What do you guys say? Well, five years ago had you asked if nationwide civil unions were possible in 2004, they would have likewise called in the mental heath professionals.

Yes, it's moving forward... faster than even the straight Lefties have realized.

Has the forced outing and resignation of Governor James McGreevey and the voiding of 4000 gay marriages in California signs that the cause of gay rights has been seriously damaged?

I personally think the resignation of Gov McGreevey had little to do with the fact that he was gay and a lot to do with the fact that he was allegedly having an affair.

As far as the recent development in California and the voiding of 4000 marriages, I don't think anyone ever expected to win that fight. It was meant as a powerful statement more than anything else and intended to bring the whole gay marriage issue into the spot light. I do not consider this a setback to the movement because it lays the groundwork for the law in California to be overturned.

It is also important to remember that things are still going well in Massachusetts and there has also been a recent ruling in Washington state that is favorable.


That is hardly correct lederuvdapac, because you are assuming that the gay population in San Francisco is 1) extremely large and 2) the only group that supported Newsom in the last election. Both of those assumptions are false.

I follow San Francisco politics very closely and especially so for the last mayoral election. Newsom didn't beat Matt Gonzales because he was "gay friendly", he beat him because his policies made more sense and more specifically he pledged to clean up the city's homeless problem and bring businesses back to the city (many left after the dot com crash). So far he has made progress on both - if you want specific details I'll be more than happy to provide them. Being "gay friendly" as a politician in San Francisco is a given, mostly because we don't even really think about it here - the gay citizens in this city aren't second-class citizens like they are in the majority of America. The only group that is ever neutral to hostile is the token Republican that runs for mayor each time that no one takes seriously and laughs at when he gets 1% of the vote.

Newsom allowed the marriages because it was the right thing to do and because he wanted to make a statement on behalf of the city about the law in California and the rest of the country in general. He didn't have to win the legal battle to do that, he only had to fire the first few shots. Furthermore he didn't "run" with this item on his platform, it was a surprise to many people.

Edited for spelling

Has the forced outing and resignation of Governor James McGreevey and the voiding of 4000 gay marriages in California signs that the cause of gay rights has been seriously damaged?

The situation with Gov. McGreevey is so ugly and sad…and much ado about nothing. From the outside, it looks like nothing more than a greedy, opportunistic con man (or jilted lover) taking advantage of a closeted gay man with a high-ranking, highly visible job. In my opinion, it’s a sign of how intolerant this country still is that in order to hold public office, one must suppress one’s true sexuality and live a lie. I give a great deal of credit to Mr. McGreevey for having the courage to go before the public himself and “confess” before the blackmailer splashed it all over the headlines. I feel bad for his wife, though having been married so long to him, she must have suspected something?!

Cibel insinuates that McGreevey was a predator and “hit on him over and over again”, and even claims he is straight. I think Mr. McGreevey is more believable. Source

And both the Republicans and the Democrats seem anxious to kick McGreevey out the door sooner than his November 15 resignation date. Source

State Senator Lesniak put it best when he said:

As for the voiding of the marriages, I don’t believe the two events are connected; it’s just a coincidence that they happened on the same day. The marriages being voided was a foregone conclusion (imo). I think gay rights has moved neither forward nor backward as a result, and the stagnation will last until our leadership is more tolerant and open-minded.

I must have missed this in my initial post and since the edit window has expired, I suppose I'll start a new post

That is a very good point wertz, and to offer some tangible proof to back that up everyone should check out the Pride 2004 Wedding Album which has pictures of most of the couples that were married. It proves that many of the stereotypes are wrong, and that in and of itself is important to the movement I think. The more people see that homosexuals are just regular people, the less fear and hatred there will be.

I made no assumptions...you put words in my mouth. 1) The gay vote in San Francisco is forever in his pocket, as well as for every other office he runs for for the rest of his life. 2) I never said they were the only group that supported him in the election. I never even mentioned the last election, i just said that he has the gay vote because of his stunt.

Shame on S.F. Mayor Gavin Newsom

He exploited the feelings of the gay population and is acutally revered as a hero.



No, what he did is break the law and it sets a terrible precedent. If Newsom wanted to marry homosexuals and challenge the State Constitution, there is a perfectly legal way to do it and that is the true issue...not homosexual marriage. The mayor over-stepped his powers and illegally married homosexuals. If he was truly sincere, he would have pioneered reform in the constitution and tried to do everything legally so there would be no setback such as the ruling made in the Supreme Court.

Please leder, by posting up a link from Fox News (a completely unbiased source to be sure) that says things like this:

You will not convince me that Newsom is "exploiting" the "fragile emotional state" gay population of San Francisco. I live in San Francisco, frequently dine in and visit castro and have numerous friends who are gay (and know a few that got married) and none of them feel "exploited" nor would I describe their emotional state as "fragile".


No, but you suggested he did it for votes and I informed you that he didn't because he doesn't need them. By showing you what the real issues for this city are, I was effectively saying that no one will favor Newsom over some other candidate in the election because of what he did for the gay community. Furthermore, being "gay friendly" isn't a unique characteristic in San Francisco as it is in the rest of the US for politicians (therefore Newsom's actions won't distinguish him). Because of the progress he has made as part of his job as mayor, he can run on results and unlike a lot of politicians in Washington I highly doubt he'll even bring this gay marriage thing up in his next election. If he did I'm sure most of the voters here would probably utter a big "so what" in unison (myself included) because our political races focus much more on the issues and less on superficial things like this.


And if Rosa Parks really wanted to end discrimination she would have petitioned the state to allow her to sit wherever she wanted to on the bus I suppose right? That is why it is called civil disobedience. You don't always win the immediate battle, but it is the events it sets in motion that is important. In fact most of the people that use this approach to change have ended up in jail at some point, however history has painted them as heros.

So what you are saying is that any mayor or any elected official for that matter can disobey the law because they believe they are doing the right thing? Where do you draw a line? Its either you think that elected officials should follow the law or they should just do whatever they want. Just because the mayor believes in homosexual marriage doesnt mean he can disregard the law. Your argument is ridiculously flawed. The issue is officials doing whatever they want which is called anarchy. There is a reason we have rules and it is to be followed.

You cant just say that it is ok that the mayor broke the law because he did something you like. I would bet anything that if he broke the law doing something you didnt like you would be on the other side of the fence. Your comparison to Rosa Parks is almost laughable. Newsom is an elected official and he took an oath to upfold the laws of the state of California. If he doesnt like the laws he could change them...legally. But he decided that he was above the law and the Supreme Court rightfully put himin his place.

Ok, we've brought this argument to its knees elsewhere before with the following question:

Can you cite the specific LAW that Newsom broke and the specific punishment described in the law for breaking it?

You can't claim he "broke the law" if you can't cite the specific law he broke. Them's the rules

To add on to what amf said, the mayor most likely stepped outside of his authority, but what is the law he broke and why isn't he being brought up on charges? If there is some law he broke I don't think I'd be opposed to him paying the penalty.

I never suggested that elected officials start breaking every law on the books for their own reasons, I was merely trying to illustrate the concept of civil disobedience. Civil disobedience does not lead to anarchy because there are still penalties involved and people only take action when the gain is worth the penalty.

Here is the ruling on the case:

Calif. Supreme Court's Ruling



Mayor Newsom violated his oath of office and over-stepped the power that he is granted in the Constitution.



Basically you are saying if an elected official is breaking the law in a manner in which you like, it is civil disobedience. I do not understand your mentality.

California Proposition 22



Maybe in your opinion Mayor Newsom made the correct "moral" decision (what a turn around, liberal praise for a "moral" decision ) but the truth is that it was the wrong legal decision. The Supreme Court made the correct decision.

No that is not basically what I am saying. I am saying that an elected official can engage in civil disobedience if they are prepared to pay the penalty for their actions. I am sure thet Newsom considered the fact that his decision could (and probably would) be struck down by the California supreme court and he could possibly face some kind of penalty and possibly removal from office.

I do not make a distinction of whether or not I like the behavior when I call it civil disobedience. When animal rights groups break into a lab and release lab animals that is an act of civil disobedience as well. I don't agree with their actions and I can still call it that, because that is the definition of civil disobedience.

What it seems that you are saying is that you disagree with anyone engaging in civil disobedience, but correct me if I'm wrong there. In which case I would submit that your mentaility is right in line with those that opposed the civil rights movement of the previous century.

It's a matter of semantics. Opponents histrionically say 'Newsome broke the law,' supporters a little too mildly say, 'Newsome did what he thought was right.'

The truth is somewhere in the middle. What Newsome did was the equivalent of slightly tweaking the California Buidling Code or ordering the county health department to kinda be sensitive and go a little easy on Chinatown. The state response in such cases is, " Hey, knock it off!"

Nobody goes to jail. And nobody at the state level can say Newsome is Al Capone, how ever much they'd like to.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...l_nj_governor_1




Oh, what a tangled web we weave....
This is my take on this whole situation:

I don't know whether the appointment as New Jersey's HSA came before or after he discovered McGreevey was homosexual, but I'm voting for before. This appointment could have been a "favor" for services rendered. Especially since there was no background check or official announcement of Cipel's appointment.

Then Cipel is reassigned and then leaves for ANOTHER government job. A job that doesn't pay quite as well as his former. Cipel saw dollar signs whenever he looked at his former boss, sort of compensation for being fired by McGreevey.

Cipel attempts to extort money from McGreevey to keep quiet. $50 million becomes $5 million. McGreevey decides that it is now or never, so he comes out of the closet AND resigns. VIOLA! He rats on himself, so the $5 million is no longer an issue.

......The first thing that needs to be done if and when Cipel steps foot on American soil again is that he should be arrested for extortion of a government official.

For some reason, I don't see a sexual harassment lawsuit in McGreevey's future either.

I notice that everyone assumes Cibel remained as the NJ HSA while working for Gov. McGreevey. This is not so. The first source I cited states that after the hoopla made over the appointment, Cibel was reassigned as "Jewish Outreach".

It sounds like Cibel wants to make a great deal of money without working for it. And for a while, he got what he wanted. I agree with UserName...I don't think he will be visiting America again any time soon.

Additional news further erodes Cibel's claims that he isn't gay and the governor harrassed him:

I'm curious as to whether Cibel will even return to the US from Israel to pursue his harrassment suit against Gov. McGreevey, and if he still thinks he can make people believe that he is just a poor little straight boy being preyed on by a gay man. If any more partners come out of the closet (pardon the pun), I'd say he's toast.

Leder:

Interesting. However, I am curious to see if your argument is sound.

Do you feel the same way about the Supreme Court ruling that "enemy combatant" detainees are guaranteed a legal hearing? The Court ruled that Bush had overstepped his bounds, much like Newsom, by eliminating detainees right to review. Bush thought he was doing what was right. However, what he thought was right was illegal.

Did the Supreme Court make the correct decision here? Or were they merely weilding their cruel axe of judicial activism?

Let's make sure we view this gay marriage thing with legalality in mind and not through a partisan lens.

Don't know that Miller's claims can be very convincing. In the Daily News article it also says:



I was Cipel's lover...

It was also reported on the local news here that Miller was erratic, stating that if any reporter's stepped on his property he would shoot them. Sorry couldn't find a link.

I think McGreevey's coming out (which as I understand wasn't really all that big news for his wife and friends) is a cover for something deeper. We will have to wait and see but I don't think this is the reason he is resigning.

As far as the question for debate I don't think this will hurt the gay rights movement. If anything it could add some momentum for the cause. Negative publicity is still publicity.

Headline from the Onion: Tearful Homosexual Admits He is Governor of New Jersey.

I voted "moving backward", and here's why:

The only place where gays are "winning" skirmishes in this fight is in the courts of law. They are losing it at the ballot box. Repeatedly.

As noted, Missouri voters, frequently considered a bellwether on the direction the country is moving, have amended their Constitution prohibiting anyting but one-man, one-woman marriages. The gay activists lost, even though they outspent their opponents 20 to 1. And they lost BIG, with 71% of the vote going against them, in an primary that attracted a record number of voters.

As one pundit observed, McGreevey is attempting to play the "Gay Card", just as Marion Berry tried to play the "Race Card" when he was busted for coke. No, McGreevey, you aren't the victim of a cruel, homophobic world, you're a corrupt slimeball trying to survive.

California: If I had the time, I'd go back through the threads and point out how many people said Newsom would win a legal battle. The California Supreme Courtcould have accepted the Equal Protection argument, even interjected it themselves if they thought it had merit, but they didn't. Because it doesn't fly.

I wasn't aware there had been any ballot measures since the spring Bikerdad, and this didn't start heating up until after that. I may not be aware of the voting schedules for every state but they do generally fall in the spring and in the fall.

So, if you are citing specific votes, you might want to provide evidence of that and also supply the date when it happened. If the vote happened before this issue started to heat up or a while ago, then it really isn't conclusive proof.

Furthermore, if you are citing a southern state for anything how is that conclusive? Assuming the federal government doesn't step in, the south will be the very last states to ever allow homosexual unions assuming they ever do (and if they federal government doesn't step in they probably won't). Now if you can show me serious recent setbacks in more progressive states again you might be on to something.

Per your request, I offer the following, which, btw, has been discussed some elsewhere on this site.

Missouri Voters say "No" to Same-Sex marriage

.

As for recent setbacks, I'm not sure what you mean by that. Hawaii is one of the most progressive states, and its voters were one of the first to amend their state constitution, in '98.

So we have Hawaii (progressive, '98), Nevada ("Sin City", politically schizoid, '02), Missouri ("Southern State?? , earlier this month), and Alaska (definitely not a southern state, eh?) that have all had their Constitutions amended by the voters. Add California's Prop 22 (which the Legislature can't touch).., also courtesy of the voters over the opposition of all the major newspapers, television stations, the entire Democrat Party, while most of the Republican leaders were hiding under their desks hoping it would all go away.

Wisconsin's Legislature, a hotbed of fundamentalism, along with Massachussett's legislature, long a bedrock fixture of the Reactionary Right, have both approved constitutional amendments, getting the process under way in those states, as has Tennessee (oh, yeah, southern, so it doesn't count in your eyes).

Oregon, another Kristian Konservative stronghold, is at this stage:



Let's not forget this:

Source

As an update to this story, the battle is far from over in California.




So first off, the legal battle here is expected to continue, no one is simply giving up because the 4000 marriages were invalidated (which was probably to be expected initially anyway).

Secondly, there are plans to introduce legislation in California and I'm pretty sure this will pass easily in the Democratic majority legislature. Arnold hasn't taken a hard line against the issue and if a bill was presented to him I think he'd be under significant pressure to sign it if he expected to keep his job in the next election.

The Bush administration is using religion to back the ban on gay marriage. i find this despicable. The government should dictate whether or not two people who love each other can get married. Just because it offends a group of people's beliefs doesn't mean you infringe on people's rights. This debate over gay marriage is parallel to the race and womens riots. we should look back at our past and learn from it. Not repeat it. Don't forget that a couple of decades ago if two people were of different races that they couldn't get married. Do we want to go back to that era?

I whole-heartedly disagree. If you consider American history, and why plymouth rock happened, religion is a part of the very reason we're here. Take a dollar out of your pocket and read "in God we trust". I am confident that this isn't necessarily just "Christian", but religious none the less. What do Jewish leaders have to say? What do Muslim leaders think about Gay marriage?

Secondly, what rights are being sought in terms of Gay marriage? There are no laws stopping homosexuals from living in harmony together, sharing property, naming each other as benefactors on insurance forms, and finally from seeing their partners in hospitals or prisons. Do homosexuals want to be included in divorce preceedings?...really, what is to be gained? (other than further degrading the moral thread of American society)

I reference to equating gay rights to racial discrimination or women's lib, I also diagree vehemently. Minorities and women were disciminated against upon birth and out in the open. Homosexuality isn't a calling card, a part of the anatomy, or visible to the outside world. Gay rights in general comes across to many people as "special treatment". Marriage in American history was the cornerstone of the nuclear family and bedded in our cultural values. I by no means advocate discriminating against two tax-paying and law-abiding Americans regardless of their sexual preferences. I also have no plans to support giving any American demographic preferential treatment or allowing something so sacred as marriage to be degraded.

Has the forced outing and resignation of Governor James McGreevey and the voiding of 4000 gay marriages in California signs that the cause of gay rights has been seriously damaged?

I wouldnt say that it has been damaged, but it has been weakened. I feel that the voiding of 4000 gay marriages is something that a fool would do. 4000 people may not be a popular majority in their respective states, however it is 4000 people rights trampling. In which im almost certain that a new post will be made. I am in 100 percent compliance with tolerances beliefes. Just because you have a couple of groups of religious groups dosent mean you can trample on personal freedoms.

Not that I expect this to get a response, given that supporters of prejudice have ignored this point every time I've brought it up before, but that is EXACTLY what is being done in 9 of the 11 states that voted to ban same sex marriage (including the state I currently live in), as well as the Federal amendment that President Bush still supports.
If it was really the semantic argument you try to claim it is, all that would be required is for the amendment to limit the application of the word "marriage". The "incidents thereof" that are banned are the ability to share property and visit a hospitalized significant other.
What is to be gained? What is to be gained by a heterosexual couple when they get married?
If you don't like same sex marriage, there is an extremely simple solution for you: don't marry a person of the same gender. Nobody is going to force you to. Nobody is going to force your church to perform same sex marriages any more than Catholic churches are forced to perform marriages between divorced people.

I must admit that I find the supposed "moral" argument extremely offensive. Discrimination is immoral, love is not. The J-man tells us to love our neighbor as we love ourselves and to treat others as we would be treated. I guarantee you that members of the religious right would not have us treat them the way they treat homosexuals.

The first part is true, Plymouth rock did happen due to religion and peoples differences. But just because the original pilgrims at Plymouth Rock were religious outcasts doesn't mean that for the rest of eternity we must live by their ideals.



I don't think trusting religion on this issue is a very good way to go. How often have they been on the ball concerning these types of issues, or anything progressive at all really? How long did it take The Church to apologize to Galileo? Something on the order of 370 years I think. The point is, I would not trust the church, or religion in general, to answer questions of this sort.



So if there is nothing to be gained, like you say, then why do we need to worry about it at all? I mean, if it's semantics like you seem to be saying, then it shouldn't matter at all, and we can just call it marriage and everything will be equal. No need to throw around other terms if they mean the same thing. Also, why create an Us vs. Them ideology? It never comes to any good when one group feels excluded and another group feels like they have the "higher ground" or are "on the inside." This reminds me of the "separate but equal" ideas of the past, which of course didn't work at all.

But of course, aevans176, you're last argument is that allowing gays to marry would somehow "degrading the thread of moral society." I'm not really sure what that means exactly, but I think you're saying that if gays married, there would be moral problems and America would somehow be a lesser place. Could you please explain how America would become worse, objectively. And could you please also prove how gay marriage is morally wrong. I am very interested in hearing the response.

Here's an effort to get this topic back on track (and I fail to see how religion applies at all). The debate question asked was:

Has the forced outing and resignation of Governor James McGreevey and the voiding of 4000 gay marriages in California signs that the cause of gay rights has been seriously damaged?

Well, in Governors McGreevey's case, I think if one is to consider entering public office with skeletons in the closet one should invest in a darn good lock.

His resignation was his choice. And I think it had a lot more to do with other issues surrounding this case, then just the fact that he was gay.

As for the gay marriages being voided, well that had to be done. There were three choices, pass a new law allowing gay marriage, change the existing law to allow gay marriage or void those marriage contracts as they did not conform to the law.

I don't think either show major damage to the gay rights movement.

McGreevey's resignation "excuse" was that he was gay. There were real issues with his adminstration and some of his own actions, some that might have risen to the level of legal action. I think that he had to resign and this was one way he could do it without incriminating himself. When it comes to the "forced outing", (used to just be called outing) every so often this happens to someone. I personally do not see how being in the closet helps promote homosexual rights, but not living in those shoes I am not so sure I could fully understand.

The voided marriage licences had to happen to support the rule of law. However, the spectacle of those marriages brought more free media attention to the gay rights cause then anything in recent history, which was likely the point of the organizers. The point of San Francisco's Mayors support of it was probably because he honestly felt homosexuals should have the right to marry. He also probably saw a good way to get national media attention. Also, remember those licenses cost money ($200.00 each I believe). San Francisco has budgetary issues and 4000 marriage licenses probably helped with that. As far as I know they never refunded those fees.

These issues are nothing, in the way of set backs as the Constitutional Amendments in some 11 or so states (including my own ) as well as the Supreme Courts Refusal to hear the Gay Marriage case from Mass.

I also don't think the lack of support from the Democrats, or the specific opposition to Gay Marriage voiced by Senator John Kerry helped the cause either. If I was gay I would be upset about these amendment and I would be mad at the religious right, but I would be FURIOUS with the Democrats for abandoning me when I needed them the most.

I support gay marriage and as is well illustrated in the Gay Marriage: What's the Harmed? topic, the opposition has no real reasonable argument against it. Yet, the sensibilities of the majority won out. In the end, I think this issue will need to be settled by the federal Supreme Court (if they ever agree to listen to it) just as the Inter-Racial Marriage issue had to be some 50 years or so ago.

One last note:

Now based on The Rules We don't debate Religion here on AD. Please avoid debating religious Philosophy when discussing this issue. I know it is hard, but if we don't avoid that aspect of this, I guarantee this topic will be closed by someone, especially when you consider that it has nothing to do with the topic question. I think this is a topic worth discussing (though possibly a bit dated at this point), and would hate to see it shut down because we couldn't keep it within the The Rules .

If you would like to discuss the Religious Merits of this issue AD seems to recommend: Belief Net. Or at least there is a link to it in the Principles and Personal Philosophy Forum.

As a gay man, I don't find "coming out's" like McGreevey's inspiring because he was basically dragged out because of an increasingly embarrassing scandal. (It reminds me of when George Michael "came out" because he was arrested for loitering in a public bathroom.) I think as gay people we have to drop the need to be seen as sweetie-pies or darlings or the "best friend" in a thousand hollywood movies and understand that potential for greater discrimination that Jews and Blacks understand from their histories. We have to keep our eye on this administration every minute.

I'm not inspired by McGreevey--I heard this his coming out was subterfuge to avoid a larger scandal about finances and improprieties. How dare he use his sexuality like that.

I think it was Michael Musto from the Village Voice who noticed that McGreevey stood next to his wife at the press conference and said boldly "I'm gay." Musto observed that a real gay man would have been sensitive enough to at least say, "I'm bisexual" and not make a complete fool out of her and their marriage while she was standing up there. I agree.

Why would you have to keep your "eye on this administration every minute"?

Why?? Really?
A quick guess would probably turn up the stated intention to try and deny them rights with a Constitutional Amendment for starters. Cause as we all know gay people somehow make people get divorced? Ive also heard they cause cancer and are often known to steal children in the middle of the night.

Has the forced outing and resignation of Governor James McGreevey and the voiding of 4000 gay marriages in California signs that the cause of gay rights has been seriously damaged?
Yes. Those who tried to push this for political gain really set back the gay community by decades. It was definetely not the time. I was initially suprised that the reaction to gay marriage was such a flash point--but really, throw in intelligent design and trying to blame gays for divorce and the state of "morality" in America one really cannot be too suprised.
Far too many people in this country are always too eager to lay the blame for their own failures on the shoulders of another person or on an object and evade responsibility for their own actions. The devil made me do it, I was drunk, If I didn't do it he wouldn't love me.
Instead its far easier to find a scapegoat and not have to seriously face ones own bad decisions or hypocrisy.

Christopher,

The Constitutional amendment was driven by the actions of the Mass. Supreme court's decision to mandate gay marriage. The amendment is meant to protect traditional marriage from courts forcing a change. It was reactionary. The original topic of the thread asks whether certain actions like the outing of McGreevey and the voiding of the "marriages" dealt a blow to the gay rights movement. I disagree.

I think the Mass. Sup. Court dealt the fatal blow as it shifted the focus away from "civil rights" and turned it to how the courts (and some public officials, like Newsom) want to circumvent the democratic process. Americans, do not want to recognize gay marriages as on a par with traditional marriages. I think they are much more likely to recognize civil unions. But, that wasn't enough-- at least in Massachusetts, and hence you get a more severe reaction against it than you would normally have had. You get the proposal for the federal amendment. You get 11 (?) state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage and some even banning civil unions.

The gay marriage issue needs to be fought in the court of public opinion first and foremost and not in the courts of law. What happened this year (with all of the setbacks) is exactly why.

Gay rights? You have a guy who lied to his wife, created children with that woman, and then led a secret life and on top of it was accused of sexually harassing another man. The victims in that mess are his wife and children. McGreevey did them unspeakable damage.

The word integrity just can't be said in the same sentence with "McGreevey".

Gay marriage in CA? The mayor of San Francisco basically ignored the law. Why celebrate someone like that? Gay marriage isn't even a matter of gay rights. Its a question of whether our institutions should be preserved or whether they should be twisted into the politically correct flavor of the month in response to a fad movement.

Gays, and ALL Americans, should be protected by our system to ensure that the government is not infringing on their unalienable rights. And that's it. There is no need to create new rights for them at the cost of destroying our basic institutions.

You are right, he did disregard the law, because the law was wrong. As far as why you would celebrate him, I don't know.. why would you celebrate someone like Rosa Parks who broke the law of her day based on what she believed in? So the state voided the marriages and guess what, now there are some court challenges that will seriously challenge the laws on the books and I bet given the current political climate in CA they'll be successful in overturning it. In other words it was a success.

To say that the whole gay marriage thing isn't a matter of gay rights is to show a complete lack of understanding of the situation these couples face. Let's forget about federal taxes completely for a second, maybe you don't understand all of the rights conferred upon you when you say "I do" at the altar. Some of these rights can be obtained by spending a lot of time and money with lawyers and drawing up the proper documents, but others simply are not available.

Fad movement? This has been in progress for a long time, at least the 80's if not far earlier than that.

Saving the insititution of marriage? What is there to save? Is the world going to be somehow turned upside down if gay couples get married? Did the world stop when 4000 of them got married in San Francisco? I think that if you want to talk about saving the sanctity of marriage you should first look at the divorce rate amongst straight couples. When that is in the 90th percentile or so then maybe you can worry about homosexuals causing problems.


This section of your post is particularly funny because you say one thing in the first sentence and then completely contradict yourself in the third sentence.

Isn't the pursuit of happiness one of the unalienable rights you speak of? So I guess that only applies if you are heterosexual or if you are homosexual and don't want to get married right?

Again you talk about destroying a basic institution, yet you provide absolutely nothing that would constitute proof of said destruction.

Cube Jockey wrote:




I think it is exactly this attitude that undermines the gay marriage movement. For that 4 week period or whatever it was back in April or May last year, people saw the mayor of San. Francisco blatantly breaking the law with apparently nothing anyone could do to stop his actions. People saw the situation as out of control and this following all the press about Mass legalizing gay marriage. The people of this country saw that the laws were not being respected and there was a back lash. Five months later 11 states(including the liberal Oregon) banned gay marriage and some even civil unions in response. Forcing change down people's throats is not the right approach to take. Interestingly, I heard Barney Frank interviewed when all this was going on. The politician in him understood full well that these actions in California would produce a backlash and he was right. You have to make your case in the court of public opinion. It will be a long hard battle but that is the only hope that you have.

That's quite an assertion. An individual can decide, for themselves, which law is "right" and which law is "wrong".

You don't like the laws against stealing? Well, you're the next Rosa Parks. Someone "needs killin"? Well, why should the law be an obstacle? Or, do you think should should be able to discriminate someone because of their appearance, their gender, or their private sex life? Go for it! Why should the "law" stand in your way if you believe in something?

If one doesn't believe in the rule of law, then I'm not surprised to learn that one would not believe that preserving our social institutions is worthy. Should anarchy reign? Why not just let everyone just do what feels good? There is no right and wrong? No rule of law? No social standards?

The Mayor of San Francisco who violated the law should have been removed from his position and incarcerated. Come to think of it, our former president Clinton should have also.... for the exact same reason.

When you go down the road that all things are relative, that laws are irrelevant, and that the means justify the ends, you go down a very DANGEROUS road that has resulted in countless human misery throughout history.

I'm for treating gays and all people with dignity. However, I'm not for throwing out one of the basic social institutions within our society to fit the whims of a few disaffected malcontents. When I speak of inalienable rights, I speak in the context that the drafters of our constitution did. Marriage is not a "right". It's an institution.

Once again we hear you speaking of destroying or throwing out a basic institution. Please do enlighten us on how that institution is destroyed or thrown out if homosexuals are allowed to get married. Was it thrown out for a time when 4000+ homosexuals got married in San Francisco - is it now back and strong as ever?

You make that assertion like it is a fact, but I'm afraid you'll have to present some sort of logical aregument if you want to throw that idea around in the same way that people say "the world is round".

I believe you completely missed the point there, LH. I believe Cube is saying that if a law is unjust or infringes on the rights of the people, the people have the should protest, and in some cases, disregard that law.



You know, for a long time slavery was a social institution. Were abolitionists against the rule of law to seek the demise of laws allowing slavery? What a society or culture finds as acceptable does not give the acts in question a legal basis. It was (and regretably) still is a social norm to be a bigot in certain areas of the country. Does that EO standards at the workplace are hence forth non-applicable?



Irrelevant Clinton poke aside, yes, the mayor techinically (to the best of my understanding) breaking the law by authorizing homosexual couples to marry, persuant to CA Penal Code 359


But before you run up and down SF city hall, calling for the mayor's arrest, note that it is here where you run into a legal bog of sorts.

The mayor claims that banning same-sex marriage is in violation of the California's Constitution where in Article I Section VII



Now California Family Code does define marriage as between a man and woman, but the code also says in Section 420, subsection c that...



Now it's obvious that there is no legal basis (and by legal, I mean secular law folks) to deny homosexual couples the right to be married. Although the code stipulates that marriage is a "Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil
contract between a man and woman" CA (Family Code Section 300), it remains a civil contract. The argument could easily be made that it is "for want and conformity to the requirements of any religious sect" that this ban exists and that it should be considered unconsititutional.



It's not so much that all laws are irrelevant, but that again, laws that deny someone's rights are unjust.

Now you get into a stickier bog of laws and philosophy. I consider myself to be an "Inspector Javert" when it comes to some laws and different when it comes to others. I personally think that this law is unjust. You may disagree. That's why we have courts. It is they who we entrust to find common ground twixt the arguments and rule, not on the basis of faith, but on the basis of secularism.




That's like saying you're for free speech as long as the few people who disagree with you can't openly publish dissenting material or saying that you're for treating black people with dignity, but they aren't allowed to marry outside their race. Sorry, but "seperate but equal" is so 1950's.

As far as marriage being a "social institution", I feel by "social" you mean "cultural" and by "cultural" you mean "Judeo-Christian". That's perfectly fine, but it has no place in the laws of the land of the United States of America. And I believe that you're trying to pass off an assumption as fact when you refer to what the drafters meant.

By alluding to marriage as anything but a right of two people's personal choice to committ themselves to one another, you turn it into a "privilage", like saying that gay folks haven't earned the right to do so. That they haven't earned the right to share their life, liberty, and happiness together, Well, I don't care what context you want to try to frame this in, but the Founding Fathers left God at the Preamble to the Declaration and intended to keep him there. Albiet man is subject to his own bias and feelings, they did their best to keep the government and our laws secular.

And when the goverment is making laws heavily biased and influenced by faith, they violate the "institution" of pursuing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Titus wrote:

I

Titus, you acknowledge that the mayor broke the law when he performed the marriages to same sex couples at city hall. But you seem to think there is some kind of loophole that people have a right to use if the law infringes on the Constitution. Two points:

First, the constitutional infringement is certainly not that clear as it is based on the broadly drafted CA due process clause. Lots of questions here as to whether the due process clause would actually guarantee a "right" to marry someone of the same sex. Ultimately that question has not consistently been resolved throughout the country based on either the federal due process clause or the state counterparts.

Second, just because a mayor of some city sees a possible infringement of the constitution doesn't mean he should act on it. Especially when the infringement is not clear. An example of a much clearer infringement of the Constitution would be any regulation of guns as the 2nd Amendment pretty clearly states that citizens have a right to bear arms. Should the mayor of some small town in Massachusetts start issuing guns to everyone and his brother because he sees gun regs as a clear constitutional violation?

Hayleyanne, I don't think that is what Titus is suggesting at all.

First of all he was referring to civil disobedience which involves breaking laws at times. Civil Disobedience has been a tool in the protestor's toolbox for quite some time and in fact was one of the major forms of protest used during the civil rights movement as well as during the Vietnam anti-war protests.

Now a participant in civil disobedience has to realize that they are breaking the law, justified in their mind or not, and they will be held liable for breaking that law. I do not believe Titus was suggesting that just because someone participated in civil disobedience they are immune from the law, and I can guarantee you that isn't what I was suggesting.

So whether or not you think the mayor violated the law and should be prosecuted is irrelevant because it is a decision for the courts to make and not a decision for you to make. The courts did take action here and that action was to officially invalidate the marriage licenses that had been issued by the county of San Francisco. The courts just as easily could have assessed a fine and/or jail time as dictated by California Penal Code, but they didn't. I am perfectly sure that Newsom knew the risks going in to this and chose to take on the issue anyway.

Now as to why they didn't assess any fines or jail time? I guess only the people in the court room that made the decision would know the answer there. I suspect it is because of politics and the courts knew that prosecuting the mayor would only cause a huge outpouring on his part and make this whole thing that much bigger of an issue. They also probably knew that the law was wrong, but didn't want to be the ones ruling on it.

As a general comment, you are going to see civil disobendience in effect when rights are denied by the government rather than when they are granted, so your 2nd Amendment example is irrelevant in this context. The second amendment also says you have the right to bear arms, it doesn't specify which kind or that they can't be regulated. That however is another debate and not relevant here.

Cube Jockey wrote:



It is the courts decision as to whether the california marriage law is unconstitutional-- not your decision, not my decision and not the mayor of san francisco's decision.

Cube Jockey wrote:




Of course the 2nd amendment issue is relevant. It is directly on point. Gay marriage advocates say that the due process clause grants rights which are then denied by the state when it defines marriage as man and woman. Gun rights advocates point to the 2nd amendment granting broad rights to bear arms which are then denied by the state when it regulates the possession of guns. It is the same argument.