New Jersey Governor James McGreevey's resignation statement was brilliant.

Threatened with a sexual harassment lawsuit by his alleged male lover, having appointed him, a thoroughly unqualified man, as homeland security advisor at a time when America, in particular, the New York metropolitan area, is threatened with horrific terror and with any number of other instances of corruption already revealed and more likely to come out, Governor McGreevey saw the future and realized he had to resign from office.

But the way he did it was a masterstroke. He turned opprobrium into compassion.

He did it with one sentence. "I am a gay American."

On the face of it, it is irrelevant to whatever wrongs he may have committed against his state, his wife or his religion. But he did so because he knew that it would immediately deflect attention from his actions to his sexual orientation.

And then he would receive at least as much understanding and compassion as condemnation.
Why?

Because the moment he announced he was gay, people assumed that he did what he did because a homophobic society forced him, a homosexual, to live a fraudulent heterosexual life.

Who then could blame him? If society forced you, dear heterosexual male reader, to live with a man all your life and deny yourself the physical love of a woman, wouldn't you, too, eventually crack under the pressure and make love to a woman?

That is how at least half the country thinks about McGreevey now: "Well, he was wrong, and sure, he shouldn't have given that man a six-figure-a-year job advising the governor of New Jersey on the life and death issue of security, but let's be decent here. The guy's gay, and he's been living with a woman all his adult life."

Moreover, the country -- or at least its liberal half, which includes the leading news media -- has a different standard for homosexual and heterosexual sins. Heterosexual men who have many partners are condemned as womanizers; homosexual men who have many partners are largely ignored. There are no "manizers."

When Massachusetts gay congressman Barney Frank confirmed, as reported by the Washington Post, "that he paid Stephen Gobie for sex, hired him with personal funds as an aide and wrote letters on congressional stationery on his behalf to Virginia probation officials," and that Gobie ran a gay prostitution service from Congressman Frank's apartment, it meant nothing to his voters or to most of the country. Imagine, on the other hand, if a heterosexual politician had such a relationship with a call girl who ran a prostitution ring from his home. The man would have been forced to resign in a week.

So, Governor McGreevey knew exactly what he was doing when he announced, "I am a gay American." In addition to eliciting compassion, he was appealing to the double standard the country holds on behalf of gays -- and striking a blow for same-sex marriage. That is why, as the New York Times reported on its front page, McGreevey's "precisely worded bombshell line -- 'I am a gay American' -- was strategically devised with the help of a national gay rights organization the governor had consulted."

What makes the assertion even more manipulative is that it may not even be true.

The odds are that the governor is not homosexual but bisexual.

On the assumption that having been married twice he has had sex with at least two women, and on numerous occasions, it is quite likely that he was able to perform sexually with them -- presumably in a way that did not arouse their suspicions.

How is this to be explained? Aren't we repeatedly told by gay spokesmen that a homosexual man can no more enjoy sex with a woman than a heterosexual man can enjoy sex with a man?

Either this assertion is false or Governor McGreevey is not "a gay American."

The odds are therefore overwhelming that Governor McGreevey is a bisexual who prefers men.

But if he had announced he was bisexual, he would have received far less sympathy, because unlike homosexuals, bisexuals do have a choice.

We have come a long way from society unfairly condemning homosexuals' perennial fear of blackmail to a time when announcing one is a homosexual is a sympathy-gaining tactic.

And for those who believe that society unfairly pressures men to marry women, I suggest asking Mr. McGreevey this: "If you could do it all over again, would you have never made love to a woman, never married and never had the two daughters you have?"

Yes, society pressures men into marriage, and admittedly, some men, not only gays, should not marry. But without that pressure, far fewer men would marry. Just as McGreevey may have always preferred sex with men, most heterosexual men married to a woman would prefer sex with a succession of women to sex with only one. Marriage demands of all men that their sexual nature not be fully expressed. It does so for society's sake, for the sake of children, for women's sakes, and, yes, ultimately for men's sakes as well. Admittedly, such an idea is foreign to those who believe that sexual self-realization is the highest personal value.

No politician should have to resign from office because he committed an infidelity. But gay politicians should be held to the same standards as straight ones. Otherwise, "I am a gay American" will continue be a great defense, even when it may not even be true.

McGreevey gives New Jersey residents plenty to talk about

Shortly after the horrific events of 9/11, James McGreevey was sworn into office as the Governor of New Jersey. Noting "New Jersey’s unparalleled security requirements", McGreevey vowed New Jersey's safety would be among his most important responsibilities. Instead, he overlooked security experts with extensive qualifications and appointed Golan Cipel. Cipel, an Israeli national, failed to gain the necessary security clearances required to do the job.

Governor McGreevey made national headlines this year when New Jersey became the first state to publicly fund embryonic stem cell research. He committed $6.5 million toward the establishment of the New Jersey Stem Cell Institute with a goal of attracting $50 million more over the next five years from public and private sources. It should not be surprising that he cites this project as a primary reason for not leaving office immediately.

Marie Tasy of the NJ Right To Life committee reports on Free Republic that McGreevey may be seeking employment at the Stem Cell Institute after leaving office.

McGreevey's legal woes

"But McGreevey proved to be a disappointment. The corruption continued. He appointed cronies, to whom he felt obligated, to senior positions. During the three years of his tenure, 55 cases of high-level corruption were uncovered in New Jersey. Various figures were convicted of the embezzlement of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. Some are suspected of accepting bribes from contractors and of ties with the Mafia. McGreevey himself has been mentioned a number of times in connection with an indictment against one of his associates, who extorted $40,000 from a farmer. McGreevey's legal adviser and his bureau chief resigned last year under murky circumstances.

Real-estate tycoon Charles Kushner, McGreevey's close friend and his most important donor, admitted this week, in the context of a plea bargain, to having been involved in tax violations of the party funding law and to attempting to impede an investigation. Kushner hired a prostitute and paid her $10,000 to sleep with his brother-in-law and his bookkeeper, with the aim of using the photographs to deter them from testifying against him. Under the plea bargain, he will be sent to prison for 18 to 24 months."

Haaretz.com

Response to: Strange Bedfellows

The piece on ESCR was very well done. Here in California, we are trying to educate the electorate about the pitfalls of Proposition 71, the human embryo cloning measure. Proponents of the proposition like to claim that we are all right-wing prolifers. However many of us oppose the measure as a reckless $6 billion gamble using taxpayer dollars that the biotech industries are unwilling to fund themselves, due to the improbability of success. Thanks for standing up for the truth. - R. D.

Response to: Should States Sponsor Cloning?

Years ago, when I was in college and extremely limited in financial resources, I was involved in an auto accident for which I was issued a traffic ticket amounting to $50. I was at a loss how I was going to manage my tuition and living expenses, let alone this citation. My solution was to "sell my blood" at a blood bank. It was one resource I could afford. Why would I not imagine that instead of blood, today's students will sell their embryos or other human parts to meet their cash needs? I am now in an advanced stage of muscular dystrophy. So far there is no cure or remedy to correct my disease. Maybe some day there will be, but there is no guarantee of it. But one thing is certain: I do not want any potential research or therapy that might correct my malady to come at the expense of any living human organism (read cloning or stem cell embryonic therapy.) I would consider that exceedingly selfish and inhuman. - R. M.

Send your letter to the editor to feedback@tothesource.org.