Here there be monsters (socratic) wrote,
Here there be monsters
socratic

  • Mood:
  • Music:

This just in, society is silly

I'm thinking about cutting back on my paying attention to politics. I still want to study enough to remain an informed citizen, of course, but most of what's out there is either enraging or depressing. I turned on Fox today, and learned that they are no longer even trying to disguise their anti-Kerry bias. They used to sneak stuff through by using commentators with a conservative bias and using negative language towards him while using positive language to describe Bush, but now they've gone overboard. They're having field reporters give biased and downright nasty opinions as if they were 'objective.' It's not as if I didn't expect this or was particularly surprised, but it disgusted me nonetheless.

Even worse is the McGreevey situation. The fact that he's gay and slept with a man is, well, interesting. It was certainly the wrong thing to do if he decieved his wife and even worse if he potentially exposed her to a sexually transmitted disease, but it's not particularly relevant to governance. I know McGreevey had a lot of other issues swirling around his administration, but I think it's pretty clear that the 'gay' part played a significant role in forcing him to resign. That's shameful. What he did was no worse than what Bill Clinton did, in fact in many ways it was less bad. A gay man forced to hide his sexual orientation due to social pressure and a desire to enter politics, forced into a marriage that could not satisfy him sexually, is less accountable for his affair than a straight man who didn't have that problem. I'm not saying he isn't accountable at all, he certainly could and should have resisted the temptation, but his behavior is more understandable. If his wife knew he was gay, and the fact that his wife has stood by him so quickly means that that might be the case, then I'm not sure he did anything wrong at all. Regardless, one's personal life is one's personal life.

McGreevey should not have felt that he had to resign because his was a gay affair. I realize that some will argue that he made the choice because a gay affair has a different effect on his family than a straight one would, and that he's just trying to deal with the personal issues. I don't know whether that's the case or not, but most politicians are unwilling to relinquish power unless they feel they have no other choice. I imagine McGreevey believed that to be the case, thinking that as an adulterer AND a homosexual he would be an immediate lame duck with no power outside those enumerated in the state constitution, which is the death knell for a modern executive.

Homosexuality is not a characteristic that affects one's ability to govern. It should not play a role in political considerations. But it does. And McGreevey probably would not have been elected as an openly gay man in New Jersey, which is a liberal state but has more than its share of homophobes. This resignation will probably have some sort of impact on the gay marriage debate, or at least I'll bet the conservatives will try to link the two.

It's 2004. Why aren't we OVER our fear of one man penetrating another man's anus with his penis? It's really not that interesting, let alone important.
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 9 comments