Dan Savage's take on the James McGreevey affair - the New Jersey 
governor who resigned because he was gay and being blackmailed about 
it - is of particularly interest to us because it focuses on 
something we're familiar with, gay men who are married to women. 

The role of McGreevey's wife, last seen standing in sort of frozen 
support of him, is interesting because, as Dan points out, it brings 
out two interesting points: 

(1) perhaps she knew and was OK with it, and that highlights the fact 
that there are more reasons for people to be married rather than just 
heterosexual pairing off. 

(2) maybe she didn't know and McGreevey married her for his career 
reasons, but this sort of mockery of marriage is OK under the current 
laws, but now two gay men getting married because they genuinely love 
and want to partner each other. 

Point (1) is likely to appeal to the several married men on these 
lists who try to tell us that what they've done is find because they 
are good husbands, their wives would not like to know, marriage 
happens for many reasons, etc, etc. 

This is still the same self serving bullshit it always is and it is 
NOT what Dan is talking about since what he envisages is a marriage 
where both parties know about each other's sexualities and still get 
married. 

I know of a case like that and it didn't end happily, but I'll accept 
it can happen. But it starts with the wife knowing about her husband 
and then deciding to get married, which is worlds apart from what 
happens with most married gay men in India. 

Vikram

When gay Americans marry
What the partnership of Gov. and Mrs. McGreevey says about the 
absurdity of banning gay marriage.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Dan Savage

Aug. 17, 2004  |  New Jersey Gov. James "I'm a Gay American" 
McGreevey has a pretty mouth. Has any pol ever looked better wrapping 
his lips around his own resignation? That was my first thought while 
watching the big gay press conference last week that served as the 47-
year-old governor's coming out and resignation -- followed closely 
by, "Wait, what the hell is up with his wife?" If I called a press 
conference to announce that I was a straight American, that I had 
conducted an affair with a woman that was going to destroy my career 
(much of which is based on my cocksucking cred), the only way my 
boyfriend would stand at my side beaming would be if he was holding 
my recently amputated testicles behind his clenched teeth. 

The reaction of the wronged wife is almost always the most 
interesting aspect of a juicy political sex scandal; the public seems 
to look to her before deciding how it should react. Remember when 
William Jefferson Clinton was impeached for ... well, take your pick: 
for having an adulterous affair, for lying under oath about having an 
adulterous affair, for having the nerve to win two elections. When 
Hillary made it clear she was going to stick with Bill, the American 
public did the same. Of course, it helped that rumors about Clinton's 
zipper problems had trailed him throughout his political career -- 
Americans knew he was a horndog when we elected him. Finding out he 
got it on with an intern didn't tell us anything we didn't already 
know or suspect. 

When the Lewinsky scandal broke, there was a lot of speculation about 
What Hillary Knew and When She Knew It. Many wondered if Bill and 
Hillary's marriage wasn't a loveless, sexless sham, a marriage of 
political convenience, a marriage about power, not love. Many 
concluded that Bill and Hillary must have had an "understanding" 
about outside sexual contact. For some, Hillary's decision to stay 
with Bill confirmed their suspicions about the existence of an 
understanding: Hillary wasn't angry, the "understanding" theorists 
concluded, because Bill wasn't doing anything she hadn't given him 
the green light to do. (Except, of course, for getting caught.) 

Watching Mrs. McGreevey beam at her pretty-mouthed gay American 
husband, I found myself wondering aloud to my pretty-mouthed gay 
American boyfriend (I have a thing for pretty mouths, what can I 
say?) whether like the Clintons before them, Mr. and Mrs. McGreevey 
might have had an understanding. Just as Hillary had to know Bill 
could be true to her only in his fashion, so it seems pretty clear 
that Mrs. McGreevey had to know her husband was a homo all along. The 
first Mrs. McGreevey apparently knew: When asked by the New York 
Times whether she was aware of her former husband's sexuality, the 
woman who divorced McGreevey pointedly refused to answer the 
question. In the Seattle Times, McGreevey's former mother-in-law flat-
out said that she knew. And then there were all those rumors about 
McGreevey that have been circulating in New Jersey for years. To my 
mind, only having already known could explain Mrs. McGreevey's 
composure, her compassionate, affectionate smile during the press 
conference. She didn't look like a woman who had been shocked to 
discover that her husband was getting it on with the hired (male) 
help. 

If she did know that her husband was gay and didn't care, Mrs. 
McGreevey isn't alone. It's impossible to know how many straight 
women are happily married to men that they know are gay -- the census 
hasn't gotten around to that question yet -- but they're out there. I 
know two married straight woman/gay man couples: In both cases, the 
men and women were friends who decided to marry after concluding that 
romantic love simply wasn't in the cards for them. Their marriages 
are loving compromises that have allowed all involved to settle down 
and start families. Defeat and resignation turned into something 
lasting and good. Is that the case with the McGreeveys? Until we find 
out -- until Mrs. McGreevey's inevitable book is published -- it 
seems plausible that she knew about her husband's sexual 
nonconformity and didn't care. 

Of course, for a high-profile couple like the McGreeveys, their 
marriage could be about something more than affection and 
resignation. Some people marry for status and power -- another charge 
laid at the feet of Bill and Hillary by angry conservatives. Oddly 
enough, the obtaining and hoarding of status and power are the true 
hallmarks of "traditional marriage." If Mrs. McGreevey married for 
those reasons, she's in good company. But she's unlikely to remain 
married for long, once her husband is no longer governor. 

But let's suppose that Mrs. McGreevey didn't know. What if she looked 
so composed during the press conference because she downed a handful 
of Xanax a moment or two before it began? What if she, like most 
straight women who discover their husbands are gay, is devastated by 
the news? (A sample of the self-help titles available on Amazon: "The 
Other Side of the Closet: The Coming-Out Crisis for Straight Spouses 
and Families," "My Husband Is Gay: A Woman's Survival Guide.") If 
that's the case, I hope the religious right has the decency to send 
Mrs. McGreevey -- and every other woman out there who discovers she's 
married to a closeted gay man -- an apology. For isn't duping poor 
straight women into marrying us the religious right's advice to gay 
men? 

According to the Falwells, Robertsons, and Santorums of the world, 
I'm supposed to think less about the South African Olympic men's swim 
team and more about hell (hot!) and eternity (long!). Then I'm 
supposed to go find a woman I can trick into marrying me. So what if 
the foundation of my marriage is a lie? So what if I have to struggle 
against my sexual and emotional needs all my adult life? Do what you 
gotta do, faggot: If you need to think about other men -- like, say, 
all those nice boys on the South African Olympic swim team -- in 
order to perform sexually for your wife and make some babies, Sen. 
Santorum says go for it. And if the truth about my sexuality were to 
ever come out -- if I were, say, threatened with a $50 million 
lawsuit by my same-sex piece on the side -- the poor woman I've lied 
to will feel humiliated and violated but, shit, no one ever said that 
marriage was all sweetness and light, right? 

If it does nothing else, the McGreevey marriage highlights the chief 
absurdity of the anti-gay-marriage argument: Gay men can, in point of 
fact, get married -- provided we marry women, duped or otherwise. The 
porousness of the sacred institution is remarkable: Gay people are a 
threat to marriage, but gay people are encouraged to marry -- indeed, 
we have married, under duress, for centuries, and the religious right 
would like us to continue to do so today -- as long as our marriages 
are a sham. As long as we're willing to lie to ourselves, our wives, 
our communities, our children, and for someone like McGreevey, our 
constituents. A closeted gay man like McGreevey can even marry twice 
and have both his marriages regarded as legitimate. Even as an openly 
gay man, McGreevey can remain married to his wife and smoke all the 
pole he likes on the side. There ain't no law agin' it, Sen. 
Santorum. But how does this state of affairs protect marriage from 
the homos, I wonder? If an openly gay man can get married as long as 
his marriage makes a mockery of what is the defining characteristic 
of modern marriage -- romantic love -- or if he marries simply 
because he despairs of finding a same-sex partner, what harm could 
possibly be done by opening marriage to the gay men who don't want to 
make a mockery of marriage or who can find a same-sex partner? 

Gay Americans -- the out variety -- no doubt expect the newly out 
McGreevey to follow the standard high-profile/celebrity coming out 
story arc: Write a book, get a boy/girlfriend, go on "Oprah," make 
ass of self. (See: Greg Louganis, Ellen DeGeneres, Rosie O'Donnell, 
et al.) Not me. I'm hoping for a different outcome this time. In my 
perverse heart of hearts, I hope Mr. and Mrs. McGreevey remain 
married. It might help Americans realize that people marry for lots 
of different reasons, and that romantic love need not be the only 
reason -- or even a reason -- that two people decide to spend their 
lives together. 

And if the idea of a gay man married to a woman makes America 
uncomfortable, well, perhaps they should let us marry each other. 
- - - - - - - - - - - -

About the writer
Dan Savage is the author of the widely syndicated sex advice column 
Savage Love, as well as the editor of The Stranger, Seattle's largest 
weekly newspaper. His most recent book, "Skipping Toward Gomorrah," 
is available in paperback. 





------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/WfTolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

Group Site:

http://www.gaybombay.info
==========================
NEW CLASSIFIEDS SECTION
SEEKING FRIENDS? VISIT
www.gaybombay.info
click on classified section and type your message in the post section once the link 
opens

What's hot? What's not? Where are the LGBT parties being held and when? Click here!!

http://calendar.yahoo.com/YYY,04497/srt,0/gaybombaygroup/?v=42&POS=



 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gay_bombay/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Reply via email to