Horrifying NYT Article Praises Jim McGreevey, and Absolves Him of His Real Political and Personal Sins, Just For Being Gay

I've said this before and I'll say it again:

I have no problem with the idea that gays are equal to any other American. I have no personal problem with accepting that I'm not better than thy are -- I don't even concede that grudgingly. I concede it happily.

My problems begin with the faction that is so pro-gay they believe homosexuals are naturally superior to the straight, and that simply by being gay, they are cleansed of all sins.

As this article (link to Althouse, who calls it embarrassing) strongly suggests. The article is headlined something about Jim McGreevey's "redemption" -- he is Redeemed through being gay -- which is a furtherance of the line taken in a documentary about him mentioned in the article, called "Fall to Grace."

See, he didn't fall from Grace by betraying his wife. Who, even though she is just a lowly breeder, is, last time I checked, still a human being, whose feelings, while not gay feelings, still, get this, matter.

And he didn't fall from Grace in putting his boyfriend on the state payroll - a major political scandal, of course, for any heterosexual.

No, see, he's fallen to grace by accepting himself for what he is.

Embarrassing. And, in its own goofy way, rather hateful when you think about it.

Is there no common-sense middle position here on how we treat and write about minorities of any stripe? Is proof of Tolerance only achieved by imagining them to be Earthbound Angels sent to redeem us?

Is it possible to treat a minority as a human being, flaws and all? Or are they all Secular Saints?

Can one merely like minorities without degenerating into this bathetic game of "I Love Them More Than You!!!"?

A Bit Unfair: Although the piece is gushy and fawn-y, it's not true, as I said, that it asserts that McGreevey's redemption comes from being gay.

His redemption, the article claims, comes from actual redemption:

After he stepped down in Trenton, the shock sent him for a month to the Meadows, a rehabilitation center in Arizona. Relentlessly excavating his heart and soul, he later went into psychotherapy and resurrected the calling he said he had felt since he was an altar boy in Carteret, N.J.

Now an Episcopalian with a degree in divinity from the General Theological Seminary, he’s embracing the Lord’s work with the same fervor with which he once pursued politics. Though the Newark diocese denied his bid for the priesthood last year, inciting another painful round of headlines about his past, he says he is at peace.

As a recovery specialist who preaches the Gospel, Mr. McGreevey spends much of his time in the Hudson County Correctional Center in Kearny, N.J., working with women fighting addiction through the nonprofit organization Integrity House. His message: No matter how far you’ve fallen, redemption is within reach.

Still, look: For God's sakes, we've seen this Rinse Lather Repeat cycle with fallen politicians seventeen bazillion times. And yet not a dollop of skepticism from the NYT.

Because he's not Southern or Republican, we know his conversion is Genuine.

This is not doing the Gay Cause any good. Because it gets very hard to argue that there is no reason not to accept gays as equal members of society when the more florid proponents of that notion do in fact seem to want to "actively promote the gay lifestyle," just as its critics charge.

I think a lot of traditionalists actually don't mind gays all that much. What they really fear is a concerted push by the media to actively champion homosexuality as preferable to heterosexuality. And the media's unrelentingly "Yo go, gay!" boosterism makes this a tough thing to refute.

How about -- let's treat like people. Okay? Because I swear to God, the pro-gay-zealots at the NYT might be surprised to discover this, but gays are in fact human beings. Nothing less, but also nothing more.

Two More Thoughts: Maybe this article just represents an irresistible one-two combination for the NYT, a liberal and gay newspaper: a liberal politician and a gay one.

It also occurs to me that the NYT will only discuss Christianity in a halfway favorable light if a fallen liberal Democrat is embracing it.

Normal people who haven't had to quit office due to scandal? Well, they're monsters for practicing a 2000 year old religion.

But McGreevey? Well, he's allowed.

Minorities and fallen Democratic politicians are the only people the NYT will accept saying the words "Jesus Christ" or be photographed toting a Bible to Photo Op Mass.

posted by Ace at 03:31 PM

| Access Comments