Aug 13, 2004   | COMMENTS     

A lot of the angst on Capitol Hill about gay marriage is tied to the fate of the Defense of Marriage Act. Many Republicans as well as Democrats argued there is no need at this time for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage until DOMA, passed in 1996 and signed by President Clinton, is successfully challenged. Now it appears to have enjoyed its first judicial stamp of approval. A Washington judge ruled Thursday that that gay men and lesbians have no fundamental right to marriage and that the 1996 does not violate the "equal protection clause" of the Constitution by allowing members of the opposite sex to wed but not members of the same sex.

Two American women, Lee and Ann Kandu, were married in British Columbia and filed a joint bankruptcy petition in Tacoma a short time later. Their petition was opposed by the Justice Department on grounds that the federal marriage law prohibited it. Federal bankruptcy Judge Paul B. Snyder found the bankruptcy code allows spouses to file joint petitions, but the marriage law specifies that "spouse" refers only to a person of the opposite sex.

Posted by Ken Sain, Washington Blade News Editor, Aug. 19 at 5:59 p.m.

More NJ Reactions
Several national gay groups — including the Human Rights Campaign, the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, and Parents Family & Friends of Lesbians & Gays instinctively jumped to McGreevey's defense, calling him "courageous."

The timing of his announcement — at the age of 47, after two marriages and at least one extramarital affair that involves allegations of sexual harassment, extortion and sexual nepotism — makes the whole episode more sad than courageous. It wasn't as if the circumstances left the New Jersey governor with much of a choice.

We can thank McGreevey for at least clarifying in his speech that it wasn't being gay that led to his resignation.

"I realize the fact of this affair and my own sexuality if kept secret leaves me, and most importantly the governor's office, vulnerable to rumors, false allegations and threats of disclosure," he said last week.

Bill Clinton issued an executive order in 1995 finally dispensing with the twisted argument that being gay was inherently a national security risk. But as McGreevey acknowledged and his own history proves, being closeted creates real vulnerabilities.

Anyone living a double life is subject to blackmail and threats, and is more likely to show questionable judgment in his official decisions.

McGreevey hired Golen Cipel, apparently his lover, to oversee homeland security for the state, even though Cipel had no qualifications. Cipel says he was sexually harassed, a claim that looks dubious so far. Either way, McGreevey's official conduct was reprehensible.

This vulnerability to blackmail and misconduct is also another justifications for outing closeted officials working against gay rights.

The Bush administration and the Bush-Cheney campaign claim, for example, not to care whether those working at the highest levels are gay. If they value our national security, they should care if these people are in fact gay and closeted. If closeted officials are patriotic Americans, they would care, too.

And if these closeted officials are in heterosexual marriages, with their spouses oblivious, then they do harm not only to their fellow gay Americans and to their country, but to their own family as well.

Posted by Chris Crain, Washington Blade Executive Editor, Aug. 19 2004 at 1:56 p.m.

McGreevey reaction
Most of the immediate reaction to the resignation of New Jersey Governor James McGreevey was shock. There was little advance warning of either major announcement, that he is gay or planned to resign. Here's a sampling of reactions after the shock wore off: From the New York Times:

Yesterday, New Jersey's governor, James McGreevey, described his coming to grips with his sexual orientation with uncommon grace and dignity, offering an extraordinary glimpse into the private torment that can accompany a public life lived in the closet. "My truth ...