Does sexual orientation matter in public office
 

I was watching the press conference that NJ Gov. McGreevey just had admitting his homsexuality to the world. Im now watching a show on CNN where they are discussing whether or not a persons sexual orientation matters if you are going to be a public official.

What are you thoughts on a person engaged in same sex relationships being in public office?


Here is CNN's report on the press conference




Link for article



Edit....to add CNN link, it wasnt up yet when I posted

I couldn't care less wether a public official has / prefers consensual heterosexual relationships or consensual homesexual relationships.
(guess what the operative word is ;) )

I'm much more concerned with the goals and actions the person has / takes with regards to my situation, i.e. taxes, laws and the dealings of public resources, i.e. corruption, fair trade and such.

EDIT: sexual preference makes me focus on fairness, and openmindedness in de actions of the public official (I don't want to see a group of people being treated special by the public official just because of his sexual preference)
But the same goes for:
race, gender, being rich/poor, nationality, history, personality. It's just one of those properties in people that I take into consideration when judging their actions to see wether I agree ( == I think it's fair, I don't necessarily need to like it).

A white stain on a blue dress or a white stain on blue slacks doesn't affect how I vote for somebody one bit. However, considering that I'm for gay marriage, and that a lot of politicians are against it, I'd actually be comforted that my elected representative has a very deep, profound vested interest in being on my side of an issue.

I don't care what someone does... so long as they are HONEST about it....

any kind of hiding means there's something wrong with what they are doing...

I would be more concerned about all the allegations surrounding the shady dealings... than who he's boffing...

That being said, character matters when a person holds office, I have no respect for someone that would cheat on their spouse, it' speaks volumes about their character. This man is trusted with the welfare of the state but he cant keep it in his pants?

Now, can we please get a decent governor in the state, it's been sooo long since we've had one...

McGreevy shouldn't have resigned because he's gay. He should've resigned because he's corrupt. :)

luckily, i do not have to know much about nj politics (i lived there 7 years, that was enough for me....)
but in general, i do not understand why sexual orientation should matter in this--or in anything else, for that matter.
the extent to which it does in the states can be linked directly to the right media apparatus, which uses homophobia as a way to mobilize the troops easily and cheaply.

allegedly corrupt... :)

Gotta wonder if there was more than allegations on him, though, and is it better to resign because you cheated on your wife wiht a man, or to resign because you were corrupt? I think he chose the lesser of two evils.

to each his own

out of curiosity, do we know for a fact taht he was cheating? or was that relationship okay with his wife?

Doesn't sound like he had his wife's permission....

It shouldn't but unfortunately it does....

Just like gay marriages shouldn't be a huge deal, but they are....
But that's a completely different matter

NO....why should it. unless it affects other people in physical sense. Did anyone die because of it? I didn;t think so. so whats the bfd??

mr b

The problem is, the man is married with kids and pushed this family picture on the forefront.
The problem is, the person he was boinking was assigned a high level position without one single credential to back it up, then threatened to sue McGreedy for sexual harrassment.

Does race matter? No. Neither does sexual orientation. People just need a few more decades to realize that.

more information is emergind about all this---so the particular way of framing consideration of the matter may well end up being moot. the gist of it is in one of the other threads.

It shouldn't but ultimately, it does. As long as most people don't know, then it doesn't hurt is probably what most people think. THe same thing holds true for affairs, how many in Washington have a little something on the side? As long as most people don't know, then it fine, is sort of the sentimate.

If someone is involved in a same-sex relationship - so what, as long as the people know. It's not about the sex, but the integrity of the office. If people would be honest, the "moral majority" would be a minority. Bill Clinton was stupid w/an intern (and a majority of 50-something males would do the same). At the same time, most people understood. Clinton had one of the best presidential years you could ask for, and that was more important. The bottom line is to be honest w/your constituents and deliver.

Same as my thoughts regarding non-whites in office: nothing wrong with it.

Same thing.

gay or straight, whether if you believe it is a lifestyle choice or you were born one way or another, does not matter an iota for being qualified to hold public office or for anything else -professional or personal. if we are going to use our free society as the justification for invading nations, let's please stop persecuting people. even if you personally think a dude doing a dude is an express ticket to everlasting hellfire, being free not only means allowing people to do and say the things that you think are the most abhorrent, it means defending their right to do and say them. that's right, our boys are die in combat so other boys can lust after other boys. like it or not, that's what america is really about. if you don't like it, you can try and succeed from the union like the last bunch of hateful asshats.

what might matter here, is that this fellow is clearly having some personal problems with his own identity and has got some serious issues to work out. if he has been repressing his homosexual side this long, i respectfully suggest he needs to be in therapy more than he needs to be in any seat of government.

not that there's anything wrong with that....

He should have been ashamed for cheating and resighned for that, he should not resighn because he is gay.

His admission of being gay (supposedly) is merely a smokescreen designed to hide that he was corrupt and morally bankrupt. Gay or not, he lied to his family and his constituents and doesn't deserve the office that he held.

Absolutely.

I don't care much who the man goes home to as long as he performs the duties of his job with objectivity.

That sounds like our President when he was appointed Governor of Teaxs. But it seems most people don't care about that, so why should they care about this? Oh right, Democrat.

Many people here are socially liberal. We would vote for a gay man/woman who we felt was going to do a better job than his opponent in a heartbeat. However, middle america is much different. A guy man/woman would have no shot of winning in most parts of our country. CNN had a poll up and over 60% said they wouldn't vote for a gay politician which was surprising to me.

I live in Nebraska, where it is still 1955. This is not surprising to me.

Hey ngdawg!! McGreedy...that's funny. :lol:

Saying he is Gay was a prememtive strike to counter the suit against him by his lover. No wait, he is not his lover, he just quit his current job being a tour guide, moved to NJ from Israel to take a 6 figure job, with no qualifications and didn't think something was wrong with that. Naaah, He wasnt his lover.

Right... because in politics we shouldnt vote for newcomers... only the salty old dogs. Because they lack the experience. The difference is the voters decided that, with his gay lover what voice did any of the people have when he was appointed to be their protection?

Yeah. People talk a lot of crap about Clinton, but those were the 8 most carefree years we've had since the 20s. After the 20s we went through the depression, then WWII, then cold war right up until halfway through Bush's term. Then IIRC the economy got crappy, Clinton was elected, and all was relatively right in the world. It wasn't until 9/11 that we got back into permanent war mode.

The first WTC attack occurred on Clinton's watch, as did the OKC bombing, the Waco massacre, and the shameful use of force at Ruby Ridge. I guess that if you ignore the awful snowball effect that was happening while Clinton was in office, everything was just peachy. Ignorance is bliss, right? Also, are you truly surprised that an attack which was such a powerful symbol as 9/11 would provoke retaliation?

Dont forget the embassy bombings in Africa 1n 1998, the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, the 1996 al-Khobar towers bombing in Saudi Arabia and the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole


How in the heck can someone say those were 8 carefree years?


(sorry for the thread jack...I just HAD to comment on the 8 carefree years post)

I'd like to point out, seretogis, that the first WTC happened when clinton had been in office for something like a month, so you really can't hold that against him. Also, not that many people got up in arms about Waco or Ruby Ridge -- most mainstream Americans viewed it as a case of "you mess with the bull, you get the horns." Extremist organizations (a religious cult a a militia group) fought the law and the law won.

Also, so long as we are attacking former Presidents, how about Reagan? Pan Am flight 103? The '83 embassy/Marine barracks bombings in Beruit? That's about 500 people there.

Clinton spent a lot of money on funding counterterrorism. He was the first one to actually recognize the threat and do something about it, aside from sell or give weapons to potential terrorists.


Wait, didn't this thread used to be about sexual orientation? It shouldn't matter, but it does to too many people, sadly.

Does it matter in the potential effectiveness of the person carrying out the job? Absolutely not.

Does it still matter as a point of public reaction with all the sentiment and emotion that still exists when talking about homosexuality? Absolutely.

I just had a male cousin of mine recently "come out of the closet" and I feel bad for him because I know what difficult things that he will have to deal with as a result.

Guys please stay on point, this isn't about Clinton or terrorism.

Bigotry has no place in a civil society, nor does deciet. They are both unfortunately.....very much alive.

Should sexual preference be an issue- No
Is it anyway- Yes
Would it effect my vote- No

A person's sexuality has no bearing on their ability to do a job or hold an elected office.

Would I be able to do my job if I were married? yes.
Would I be able to do my job if I were not married? yes.
Would I be able to do my job if I were married to a woman? yes.
Would I be able to do my job if I were married to a man? yes.

The same holds true for almost any job...unless you are a porn star and can't get it going because your co-star is not your sexual preference... or something like that. :)

This should not be an issue. Sad that it continues to be an issue. So very sad.