i am so unhappy about recent events with NJ governor jim mcgreevy and the annullment of the same-sex unions in san francisco. is it that people are being even crueller, suddenly, now that the issue of non-hetero sexual preferences has emerged from the national subconscious into a recognized debate, and is therefore that much more 'real' to the people most afraid of the ramifications of accepting gay relationships as equally valid? mcgreevy cheated on his wife. we don't know what rules or inner logic defined their marriage, and there is no word of separation or divorce. in fact, she was smiling beside him as he came out as a 'gay American.' even that ghoul of human misery, diane sawyer, who was so awful to judy steinberg dean a few months ago for having the temerity to have a whole life of her own, recognized that.
so mcgreevy's ex-lover is expected to file a sexual harassment suit today... and the man gives up his political career and outs himself on national television? (he should have called President Bill for some pointers!) seriously, though, and i know it's purely hypothetical: what would have been different about that press conference if mcgreevy's lover had been a woman? would he have resigned? it seems as though rather than sexually harassing golan cipel, mcgreevy actually went out of his way and placed himself at considerable poitical risk to promote this fellow to offices for which he was not qualified. If that is harassment, it's harassment of an alarmingly sinister and subtle variety. since we're probably never going to know about went on between these two men, any more that we have any right to understand the mcgreevy marriage, what i don't understand is- why resign? it looks like mcgreevy was being blackmailed- or threatened with blackmail. so why go all president bartlett on the state of NJ, which just signed into law a provision for same-sex civil unions. why not come out wearing his person-face and say 'hi folks. guess what? i'm gay. my wife and i have an understanding, and no one here is breaking the law. unfortunately, a while back i had a relationship with a man who feels that i have not been fair in my treatment of him as a member of my administration. he seems to be leaning towards filing a suit against me, and i felt that in light of this unpleasant circumstance, it was only fair to inform you of what is otherwise a private matter between myself and my wife. thanks.' i realize that this is a bold move, but the man has the office - and has not even yet been accused of a crime or misconduct. why shouldn't he show his hand? NJ has been behind him so far - what was he afraid of? that the citizenry of one of the most liberal states in the country wasn't going to be able to take the news that he was gay and married? if anyone's taking offense at anything here, then the big questions coming up ought to be over his nomination of an unqualified individual to a post as drop-dead critical to the safety of millions as New Jersey's homeland security director. Now there's a cause for resignation.
i'm sure more revelations are on the way on this situation, but i'm depressed that whatever has been going on with jim mcgreevey behind closed doors has led to this: okay, you got me. i'm gay and i resign. maybe that's why the added blow of having all the san francisco marriages revoked yesterday stings particularly. let's face it, civil unions do not confer any particularly fantabulous benefits in practical terms. if that was the real issue at hand, i don't think the people on the other side of the debate would be screaming for blood the way they have been since this whole sideshow began when gavin newsom started issuing marriage licences - a politically risky and legally shaky move, for sure. But deep down, the emotional meat of the issue is still social acceptance of homosexuality. If the state to which you pay your taxes, and in which you live your life, in which you work and shop and drive and love and even raise your family does not recognize your partnership, you are forever outside of some invisible line. This is not to say that all- or even most- homosexuals want to be married, but that our refusal to accept that this is not a federal issue is illuminating a fudamental new truth about America as a country: that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are fine by us, as long as we all have the same idea about what those things mean. put another way, if the federal government does not care if i make a right on red in jim mcgreevy's state or not in pataki's, but it does care if my partner and i can be married there and yet not here, we are about to sacrifice something far more important than the creaky old 'institution' of marriage. it seems to me that what we are really giving up on is the fundamental truth that all people are created equal - and different, and that as long as we're not hurting anyone, we should be allowed to get on with our lives as we see fit, living in honest homes in communities of like-minded people whose individual votes and opinions really do matter - because it is us, and not the federal government, who decides what side of the line we are on.
i can't imagine how painful it must be as a newly married couple -three thousand, nine hundred and ninety-five couples- to have that status taken away by supreme court decree, especially when across the country this mcgreevy story is breaking and calling our definition of marriage into question more sharply than ever before. i don't know if newsom knew what fresh hell he was calling down on those poor couples when he started issuing licences - in retrospect it seems cruel to have given them such a gift, knowing it could so easily be taken away. (on the other hand, i suspect that one of the episodes of recent history i will remember all my life is that time when same-sex couples in san francisco were lining up to be married, on streets filled with their fellow citizens, cheering them on. it's probably never a bad time to be in love, but between Feb. 12 and March 11 of 2004, in san francisco and across the country, it must have been extraordinary.)
jim mcgreevy and mike newsom both seem to have the wrong idea about where to take their steps in the brave and terrible and frighteningly fucked-up world we've got going, but i have to say that i admire newsom's passion and rashness much more than i do mcgreevy's cowardy weeble-wobbling and irresponsibility, even if he did just out himself on national TV. if we don't speak up for what we believe in, even if we have to fail a dozen times, or get yelled at by our bosses, or constituents or whatever, or even lose the goddamned election, we are selling ourselves so cheaply we might deserve whatever we get.

-----Original Message-----
From: Morgan
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 12:57 PM
To: Vanessa Soto
Subject: What are you up to tonight?
Yea...this was all very sad. As for NJ's gov. I feel like there's a lot of this story we'll never know or understand ...and it's sad that it will inevitable be remembered thanks to conservative spin that "He's GAY ...so he can't be gov" The San Francisco debacle is, however, more upsetting to me. I can't even imagine how hurt these couples must be. The right seems to becoming more and more enraged and less and less logical. They seem to have a one-phrase argument for everything and don't bother to actually think about what they are saying. Gays can't marry because it will ruin the sanctity of marriage...(what about adultery and divorce?) I'm starting to realize that what they want is not to preserve and defend their lifestyle, but rather to attack and punish those who've chosen a different lifestyle. They are not Pro-Life they are Anti-Choice (if they were Pro-Life they would all adopt 3 children every year and be VERY opposed to the death penalty.)
I thought Republicans believed in smaller government? Everyone's going crazy though, so I suppose I shouldn't be so confused.

I can meet up for a drink tonight if you'd like, or actually anytime this weekend.

.m

From: Jon Haddorff
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 11:59 AM
To: Vanessa
Subject: RE: had to get off brain... not terribly cogent

Thanks for the brilliant rant. I appreciate having you on "our" side of the debate and I agree--why resign? But there are also federal investigations into his campaign financing which may mean "I'm gay" is just a smokescreen for the real reason he resigned, which is also kinda depressing. But we live on and can be grateful that things are changing...a few years ago he might not have felt so free to announce his sexuality on national TV and the more that come out publicly, the less stigmatized we become.

xoxo--J

From: Adam
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 3:33 PM
To: Vanessa
Subject: Re: had to get off brain... not terribly cogent

dearest vanessa,

thought this was an opportune moment to tell you that your beautiful mind is even more attractive to me than your beautiful...
well said, sister.

yours,
adam

From: Lawrence

Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 2:36 PM

To: Vanessa Soto; Karie Gilson; Jon Haddorff; John Hamilton; gpesoa@mindspring.com; CBotana2@aol.com; Adam W. Griffith; Soul Light

Subject: RE: had to get off brain... not terribly cogent

Let's get a few things "straight" here:

McGreevey may have *said* he resigned over his affair with Golan Cipel, but the real reason is going to "come out". For one, EVERYONE in state government knew he had an affair with Cipel (in fact, Vanessa, I think I even told you about it at some point). Everyone in the press knew, which is why there were so many detailed articles about Cipel's career at the ready. When Cipel was named the head of state security, there was an outcry because everyone knew his relationship with the governor and how unqualified he was (Collette Avital, the Israeli Counsel General and Cipel's former boss -- and by no means a pro-Republican conservative -- questioned Cipel's qualifications and how much he padded his resume). Of course, no one would actually say what the situation was really about, but for a good example of how to read between the lines, see this article written two years ago: http://www.cpanj.com/capitalreportpages/mcgreeveywatch/august2002/MCGREEVEY.

The gov's orientation was pretty much established when he ran the first time in '97. No one -- not even the Republicans -- brought it up because, let's face it: if you were to have every gay elected official in the state resign, the Garden State would lose half its leadership.

The real reason had more to do with the series of indictments surrounding the administration. Specifically, when Charlie Kushner was arrested over a month ago (for paying a prostitute to sleep with his sister's husband and video tape it so he wouldn't talk to the Feds about Charlie's donations to McGreevey), the heat was turning up. Then, all of a sudden, two weeks ago, Charlie's ankle bracelet came off. Guess how? How 'bout co-operation so Charlie wouldn't do as much time as he would've.

Then there was the "Machiavelli Affair". David D'Amiano was McGreevey's school friend. D'Amiano was involved in a scheme whereby contributions were taken in exchange for millions in state farm aid (see article here: http://www.politicsnj.com/kornacki070704_indict.htm).

A couple of years ago, Bergen County's former Sheriff, Joe Ciccone, announced that he was being both prosecuted and persecuted because of his sexuality. Fact is, Ciccone was so dreadfully corrupt that no one could no longer turn a blind eye. What McGreevey did yesterday was something out of Ciccone's playbook. Thankfully, the law looks past a person's private situation and looks at their public actions. Ciccone was convicted and so should McGreevey.

McGreevey was a ruthless, power-hungry thief. His sexual orientation had nothing to do with it. I'm quite frankly disappointed that everyone has fallen for his false martydom, especially you, Vanessa, because you're exceptionally bright.

The gay community should be outraged that this criminal dare use his orientation as a sheild for the banditry he committed. When he ran for governor -- or shortly after he took office -- he had ample opportunity to come out. He could have done so much good. Instead, he robbed the state, threatened the environment with the "fast track" of development permits (a payoff to the large developers in exchange for a joke of an environmental policy which robbed Highlands property owners), shook the tax base with ridiculous amounts of spending paid for in increased taxes, and embarrassed the state with some of the most dreadful appointments around. It's only when his actions caught up to him that he through one last Hail Mary pass hoping to save his tarnished reputation. Now he wants to be a martyr. Don't let him get away with it.

&^*# Jim McGreevey and all he stood for. The sooner he and his criminal ilk leave Trenton, the better.

From: Vanessa Soto Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 4:04 PMTo: 'Lawrence; Karie; Jon; John; gpesoa; CBotana; Adam; Soul Light; Scott

Subject: RE: cogenter

hey lawrence,

thanks for taking the time to write this- and for the compliment. i was careful to mention neither 'republicans,' nor 'democrats' nor even to hint at the liberal/conservative debate in my article.

i guess my thesis was something less definitive- some intangible distinction in how we mean our actions, how sometimes legality and immorality are more like each other than we would hope for. more and more, what i see is a strain of malignant capitalism - making over a nation of ornery individuals into an easily led, easily fed, easily manipulated, and unfortunately, an easily slaughtered flock.
this has less to do with any party in particular, than with the sort of cynicism that turns the vital things that motivate real people into loathsome political doubletalk. this is the sort of cynicism that kills, i think.

the only antidote, or treatment, or whatever, is for people to stop thinking this way - stop following the path of practicality and cool pragmatism and instead to assert the human right -forget the Constitution here, for a minute- to say that some things, like love and life and death, are far too important to be used as forensic placeholders for warring interests. i think the only way that's going to happen is if we reach right down to where the issues are hurting us, or making us angry, and try to say why it is we feel that way, rather that accepting that this is the state of the world.

love, as ever,
v

From: Adam

Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 5:27 PM

To: Vanessa; Lawrence; Karie; Jon; John; gpesoa; CBotana; Soul Light; Scott

dear lawrence,

sorry we haven't had the pleasure. i want to make sure that i'm understanding your argument properly.

you're saying that it's marginally less offensive to the public of new jersey to admit that you're queer than it is to admit to being a criminal? and further that this is an acceptable state of affairs?

respectfully,
adam w. griffith