In The Psychology of the Closet: Governor McGreevey’s New Clothes, psychotherapist Jack Drescher, M.D., contrasts New Jersey Gov. James McGreevey’s struggle to come out as same-sex-attracted, with the psychological complications faced by those who choose to remain closeted, to dissociate from their sexual orientation and to claim outwardly to be heterosexual.
Interestingly, Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Leonard Pitts also found the McGreevey exgay connection worth writing about. Pitts shares my view that the allegedly corrupt McGreevey is no hero. Nevertheless, Pitts also indicates that he grasps the difficult choices that confront same-sex-attracted people like McGreevey:
…You wonder if the lesson of all this is lost on the people who need it most, the ones who become apoplectic when gay people leave the closet and declare themselves human beings deserving of human rights. Such people fail to realize that gays have only two other options, neither of them particularly attractive.
One, they cease to be homosexual. The problem with that is, homosexuality is not a disease. Therefore, it cannot be “cured.” And yeah, I know that statement will not sit well with those religious fundamentalists who believe the opposite. I would only remind them of Gary Cooper and Michael Bussee, who in 1976 founded an organization called Exodus. Its stated mission was to grant “freedom from homosexuality” through the power of Christ.
Exodus is still around, but Cooper and Bussee are no longer affiliated with it. The two men left the group after they fell in love with each other.
Which brings us to the second option. If one can’t cease to be gay or lesbian, deny being gay or lesbian. Lie about it.
Pitts’ characterization of Exodus is a bit oversimplistic: Sexual orientation rarely changes, and the late Cooper’s role as co-founder is disputed. But I think Pitts’ presentation of choices may be essentially on target.
You mention Pitts’ comments re: “the McGreevey exgay connection”. What connection? Did I miss something?
Is McGreevey now claiming to be “ex-gay”, or was this a position superimposed by others who were writing about his recent announcement? Or was it one possible conclusion proposed as well as other conclusions?
Regardless, I did enjoy the conclusion of Pitts’ article:
Amen! That should be embroidered onto the pillows of every preacher in the country. 🙂
I can see Stephen Bennett rubbing his greedy little hands together now at the prospect of “saving” the Governor from the sin of homosexuality.
If Bennett (or Exodus) could convert a former Governor it would be a complete cash cow and publicity machine.
Luckily I think McGreevey is alot smarter than to mix with the likes of them.
Ray,
I agree there is no clear connection, except for the comparisons that Drescher and Pitts opted to make between a hypothetical McGreevey who opts to remain closeted, and the exgay political activist that opts to closet people or relabel sexual inclinations/orientations with euphemisms for the ongoing inclination.
McGreevey is not a very good subject for comparison; a better example would have been Ed Schrock, who was, allegedly, homosexually promiscuous even as he condemned and legally harassed monogamous gay couples and their families.
Has mcgreeveys wife made any public statements yet? If so, i haven’t seen them. I would assume a divorce is in the works…
Why would you assume that? (Not that I’d specifically recommend NOT getting a divorce, but what they do as a couple, and whatever resolution the arrive at, is up to them. They have a small child, and there may financial/emotional reasons for staying together, at least until all this public stuff subsides, so they can deal with personal issues privately and rationally. Rushing to divorce doesn’t seem the wisest resolution, imho
I don’t know whether the author of the cited article was using the McGreevey case as a jumping off point to make a broader point, but from what I have read McGreevey’s dalliances with men were fairly widely know among the press corps in New Jersey. IOW, he wasn’t exactly a closet case like, for example, Schrock (the recently-outed Republican representative from tidewater VA) or Robert Bauman (the Republican representative from MD who was outed in 1980).
BTW, I’ve read a few of Leonard Pitts’s commentaries, and have always found them very sensitive. In more ways than one.
Also, I agree with the comments regarding McGreevey in the post. He’s no hero.
Why would you assume that? (Not that I’d specifically recommend NOT getting a divorce, but what they do as a couple, and whatever resolution the arrive at, is up to them. They have a small child, and there may financial/emotional reasons for staying together, at least until all this public stuff subsides, so they can deal with personal issues privately and rationally.
Sorry, i was under the impression that gays werent allowed to be married. My bad.
No marty, they just can’t marry the person they love, you keep overlooking that.
Nah, just thinking what would happen if Marty were married to a lesbian who only wanted his presence for respectability or for children.She gets what she wants. He gets to spend the next ten years either in near celibacy or adultery wondering what the heck is wrong with the relationship. Until she gives up the charade and drops him for another woman disrupting any and all plans (legal, financial, Spiritual) for a life together.
MacGreevey isn’t a clear-cut example because we can not be sure what motivated him to not only marry but marry twice. Did he use the marriages for political gain? Did he use the marriages for cover? Did he use the marriages to try to change? We don’t know.
Unlike the republicans he wasn’t hypocritical. Deceitful and lacking good judgment perhaps, but he wasn’t proposing bills against gay rights.
We also don’t know about any of his male lovers. At most it looks like he might have been blackmailed or he might have been trying to hide a former lover or he might have been hitting on someone who didn’t return the favor.
Anyway, I wonder what will happen when the first openly gay person runs for governor of a state. Somehow I expect that to be the next big controversy in fifteen years or so.
Well i know it’s offtopic for this blog, and with apologies to MikeA and raj, the ball is in your court TA. The question has been raised:
If gay marriage or civil unions are legal, can two STRAIGHT men legally marry?
Yeap, Marty they would be able to marry. One would have to question their motives for being married. Not many romantic reasons for either party to enter into the marriage. It certainly was not love. Maybe there are financial or legal reasons why they wish to be married? But yeah they could.
heterosexuals marry for reasons other than love. for money, for politics, for social reasons. if two straight men want marry for reasons other than love, why should that be any different from many heterosexual marriages NOW? (see anna nicole smith, j-lo, and others)
the institution of marriage historically was treated more as a business contract than a love match. anti-gay people want to demonize gays for things they already do. hey, don’t blame us for YOU fucking up the institution of marriage. all we want to do is to marry for love.
Marty- I answered that on your blog. I agree with the answers given, though.
“If gay marriage or civil unions are legal, can two STRAIGHT men legally marry?”
Yes, Marty, they would have that right – just as gays and lesbians now have the (meaningless) right to marry others of the opposite gender.
>If gay marriage or civil unions are legal, can two STRAIGHT men legally marry?
This is a joke, right? My same-sex husband and I married back in June (we are residents of MA, and so we are really married) and at no time were we asked about our sexual orientation.
Of course it’s a joke. He knows that removing the current gender-bias that stands in the way of same-sex marriage will mean that any two people can then have a binding contract equal to any other marriage.
You’ve answered the first question, which was no joke. Neither is the followup:
If two men can marry each other, regardless of their stated orientations, can two brothers then marry each other?
Ray: He knows that removing the current gender-bias that stands in the way of same-sex marriage
That “gender bias” bit is funny. You realize that male+female marriage is a gender integration by it’s very nature. It is YOU who are holding a segregationist “separate but equal” position in this debate. Just thought i’d point that out.
I was referring to the gender bias in the fact that currently same sex (same gender) couples cannot marry — there is a legal bias against it, based on gender.
Marty,
SSM marriage is one thing, incest is another. The reason for prohibiting one has nothing to do with the reasons for prohibiting the other. For instance, you used the “brother/brother” example, but we could just have easily used “brother/sister,” This just shows you that “incest” is not more logically related to homosexuality than it is to heterosexuality.
And you know something if the FMA passes, yes the 2 brothers will be forbidden from marrying, not because they are brothers, but because they are 2 men, but the brother/sister marriage WILL NOT be unconsitutional under FMA.
(BTW: If you believe in the Biblical story of creation, then the entire human race was propogated by brother/sister incest. Think about that).
>If two men can marry each other, regardless of their stated orientations, can two brothers then marry each other?
Another idiotic post.
Not in Massachusetts. At least not currently. One suspects that you haven’t heard statutory limitations regarding degrees of consanguinity.
If two brothers wish to marry–or a brother and sister, for that matter–they can address the issue in the courts in the usual manner.
>BTW: If you believe in the Biblical story of creation, then the entire human race was propogated by brother/sister incest. Think about that
No, the Cain (or was it Abel?) got his wife from the land of Nod. Where they came from is anyone’s guess.
Another thing that the Wholly Babble failed to explain.
Jon Rowe, i’d like a simple yes or no answer to the question. I’m not talking about incest, i’m talking about marriage. Where SSM is legal, can two brothers marry each other, regardless of who, how, or whether they have sexual reltaions?
If yes, just say so.
If not, why not?
>Jon Rowe, i’d like a simple yes or no answer to the question. I’m not talking about incest, i’m talking about marriage.
You got my response to your idiotic question, Marty. No follow-up?
raj, thanks. We’re getting to consanguinity one small step at a time.
No problem, Marty. When a man wants to marry his brother–or his sister–and brings the issue to court, we’ll see what happens. The issue has nothing to do with whether I should be able to marry my husband, of course.
Other than in the minds of the homo-hating wackos. Of course.
When a man wants to marry his brother–or his sister–and brings the issue to court, we’ll see what happens.
Yes, we will.
The issue has nothing to do with whether I should be able to marry my husband, of course.
Unless you’ve set a precedent. Of course.
>Unless you’ve set a precedent. Of course
What a crock. The precedent was set when opposite-sex couples mau-maued the government into recognizing their relationships. I’m referring to “marriage” of course.
You really don’t expect people to give in to your idiotic rants, do you?
“If two men can marry each other, regardless of their stated orientations, can two brothers then marry each other?”
Marty, what is the point of two brothers “marrying” each other – or a brother and sister for that matter (although just such a relationship is at the core of last year’s Pulitzer-Prize winning “Middlesex”)? Civil marriage exists to create new legal families and provide those families with the benefits that the law already ascribes to biologically related people (e.g., if I die without a will, my father and/or sister will be my legal heir, because of our biological relationship). Therefore, there is no reason for two brothers to marry, just as there is no reason for a sister/brother combination to marry – they are already related. Thus, you can eliminate incestual “marriages” from the law without violating the principle of the law.
My point was that they are 2 separate Qs, each requiring a different analysis. Oh sure some “general principles” that might lead to the acceptance of gay marriages might also lead to acceptance of incest (for instance, a “right” to get married, or “whatever 2 consenting adults want…”). But, other principles in favor of gay marriage won’t (i.e., government ought not to draw lines on the basis of gender). Similary some of the general principles enunciated in Loving would lead to gay marriage or perhaps incest (for instance, Loving enunciated a “federal civil right” to marriage), but others wouldn’t (no race issue involved in gay marriage).
If you think about the characteristics of incest, incest is actually logically closer to miscegination than it is to homosexual relations. With homosexual marriage, we are talking about the “wrong” gender. With incest & miscegination, we are talking about the “wrong” degree of “relatedness” between the 2 partners, either too closely related “incest” or too distantly related, “race.”
My point was that they are 2 separate Qs, each requiring a different analysis. Oh sure some “general principles” that might lead to the acceptance of gay marriages might also lead to acceptance of incest (for instance, a “right” to get married, or “whatever 2 consenting adults want…”). But, other principles in favor of gay marriage won’t (i.e., government ought not to draw lines on the basis of gender). Similary some of the general principles enunciated in Loving would lead to gay marriage or perhaps incest (for instance, Loving enunciated a “federal civil right” to marriage), but others wouldn’t (no race issue involved in gay marriage).
If you think about the characteristics of incest, incest is actually logically closer to miscegination than it is to homosexual relations. With homosexual marriage, we are talking about the “wrong” gender. With incest & miscegination, we are talking about the “wrong” degree of “relatedness” between the 2 partners, either too closely related “incest” or too distantly related, “race.”
Doom, nice try.
Jon, who defines the “wrong” degree of “relatedness” between the 2 partners and on what basis is that distinction founded? Why does relatedness matter? On what basis is consaguinity a valid reason for marriage discrimination?
FWIW i’ve posted the Consanguinity Chart on my site. We’re moving right along, and i appreciate everyones willingness to explore this consequence to its natural end.
“Jon, who defines the ‘wrong’ degree of “relatedness” between the 2 partners and on what basis is that distinction founded? Why does relatedness matter? On what basis is consaguinity a valid reason for marriage discrimination?”
That’s an interesting Q and we can get into it. But it seems to me, it’s an entirely separate one from same-sex marriage. I am disputing that one logically follows the other any more or less than a right to interracial marriage follows a right to same-sex marriage. Oh sure analogies can be made — that’s what legal (and philosophical reasoning) is all about. But, the thing about the slippery slope or reductio ad absurdum argument that you are using is that if we examine the principles that lay behind literally any policy move, even all of the “good ones” that we all agree upon (for instance Loving), each and every time we can “slip” from a desirable move to one in which we all would agree is undesirable.
Folks can distinguish Loving by applying its reasoning very narrowly. But we likewise could apply the reasoning behind a move to SSM narrowly.
In terms of the similarities between incest and homosexuality: Both have been condemned by tradition…but so too have interracial ones (thus, all 3 are in the same boat in that one).
“Jon, who defines the ‘wrong’ degree of “relatedness” between the 2 partners and on what basis is that distinction founded? Why does relatedness matter? On what basis is consaguinity a valid reason for marriage discrimination?”
I don’t understand why the existing answers to these would be changed at all by same-sex marriage. Unless you’re assuming that the only reason for banning incest is the greater risk of double-recessive genetic defects? But surely that isn’t the only reason, or incest with adopted children would be perfectly legal. Incest mucks up the family majorly, and has been taboo in every culture, ever, even if cultures vary on their exact boundaries (such as whether cousin marriages are encouraged or barred).
There have even been some cultures where some form of same-sex marriage was practiced (if only, as far as I know, by means of having one of the partners socially considered of a different gender from the biological one), but none where a man is allowed to marry his mother.
Unless you’re assuming that the only reason for banning incest is the greater risk of double-recessive genetic defects?
Arguably the primary reason, if not the only.
But surely that isn’t the only reason, or incest with adopted children would be perfectly legal.
I’ll listen to those other reasons, and we can ask ourselves if they are still meaningful. And personally, I dont think adopted siblings are prohibited from marrying. Could be wrong. Happens all the time on daytime soaps 😛
Incest mucks up the family majorly, and has been taboo in every culture, ever, even if cultures vary on their exact boundaries.
A bit if a blanket statement, but taken at face value, then the same can be said of homosexuality. Neither are true in every case, but neither are they false in the vast majority.
Actually, .Marty adopted siblings maybe prevented from marring depending on which state you live in. Inbreeding as we would know it today is not the primary reason why incest laws were created, but it is one of the reasons why they still exist today.
However another reason for marriage is to make ties between families and clans and in general the only times cultures have promoted marriage within the family is in the case of royal families and only for the reason of increasing the resulting children’s claim to the throne. A good example of this is in some parts of India. Marring someone within your village is taboo, but marring your cousin in another village is not.
Marty | September 14, 2004 10:00 AM
>>>>Unless you’re assuming that the only reason for banning incest is the greater risk of double-recessive genetic defects?
>Arguably the primary reason, if not the only.
From what I have read–this was from the Encyclopedia Britannica, so it could hardly be dismissed out of hand–the likelihood of the “greater risk of double-recessive genetic defects” is so small that it is highly unlikely that that is even a substantial basis for the incest taboo.
Um, note, the thread has strayed far from the topic of the initial post.
Um, note, the thread has strayed far from the topic of the initial post.
raj i’ve been hinting at that for days now, but would hate to have you accuse me of promoting my own blog here… 😛
(3 posts, and 41 comments so far, on this very topic hint hint)
Marty writes: A bit if a blanket statement
If you mean my statement that some sort of incest taboo (the exact boundaries varying) is a cultural universal, that statement is backed up by anthropological research. I’ll follow your hint, and take my further comments over to your blog.