POLITICIANS: KEEP YOUR SEXUALITY OUT OF THE PEOPLE'S BUSINESS!

JIM MCGREEVEY IS REASON NUMBER ONE WHY THE PERSONAL SHOULD STAY OUT OF THE POLITICAL

All right, that's enough.

It was irritating enough that former President Clinton felt the need to exercise his sexual proclivities in the people's Oval Office, by preying on Monica Lewinsky. He thought so little of the space that we, the people, granted him as a perk of working for us as the president that he abused our time and our space to pursue his personal entertainment.

Then, as the election approached, I kept hearing about how Kerry and Edwards are "metrosexuals," which appears to be some kind of politically correct word invented recently to describe what we used to call "sissies"-- a man who is less than a manly man, but not gay. This is the kind of primping prima donna that flies in a hairdresser of his own to give him a "touch up." A real man would just go to a barber. Dick Cheney just runs his hand through his receding hair and pushes into the wind.

Now, we have (you'll excuse the expression) a full-blown sexuality scandal in an executive office. The governor of New Jersey, Jim McGreevey, turns out to be as "queer" (hey, if the fab five can use it, so can I) as he is corrupt. New Jersey, being the maggot-infested carcass in the field of American politics, has managed to produce yet again a scandal of Herculean proportions, one which has the added media draw of the entire panoply of the Scott Peterson/Michael Jackson/Kobe Bryant trifecta--lies, seduction, and denial.

Mr. McGreevey, a now self-proclaimed "gay American" (is there a hyphen in that, by the way?}, recently resigned due to the embarrassing facts that 1) he is gay; 2) although married, he has been having an affair with a man; and 3) he is about to be sued by his alleged former boyfriend. Jersey being Jersey, however, after the news media stopped reeling from his "courageous" announcement of his gayhood, they began to clue-in to the fact that there was more to the story than he was letting on.

Indeed, there was much more.

McGreevey, as it happens, hasn't really gotten to his "unique truth." There is nothing "unique" about Americans believing themselves to be gay. There is nothing "unique" about such persons having affairs, either. McGreevey's truly "unique" truth is that he is one of the most corrupt politicians any state has managed to produce in American history, a feat made much more impressive by his Olympic-level competition in New Jersey history.

Now his alleged lover, an Israeli poet and sailor named Golan Cipel, claims that he himself is not gay. Rather, he contends that the Governor fell in love with him and pursued him to the point that he first left his employ and then threatened to sue him for--depending on whom you believe--either five or fifty million dollars (or perhaps something in between.) To be fair, Cipel's story is almost as bizarre as McGreevey's claim that he is leaving so that his sexuality and affair won't interfere with the smooth functioning of Jersey politics.

Cipel, one is asked to believe, a heterosexual with no qualifications for the job, was tapped by McGreevey to be homeland security chief for New Jersey (a state that, we read in the 911 report, does indeed have something to worry about in the terrorism department.) He claims at this point not to have known that the governor was gay; after all, he was happily married. It was not until the governor began making aggressive advances on him that he realized the whole job thing might have been a ruse to get closer to the young man.

Now, we have seen such relationships in the past--powerful politicians giving jobs to comely young interns or otherwise unqualified women, such as Fanne Foxe or Monica Lewinsky. But one hardly ever believes that the recipient of Daddy's sugar is unwitting as to the quid pro quo involved. In this case, Mr. Cipel asks us to believe that he knew nothink, (nothink!) about the governor's intentions. Moreover, I would be willing to bet that, as this pornographic tale unspools, the governor will ask us to believe that he didn't give his "boyfriend" employment in exchange for sexual favors (because he knows that "bribery" is a much less welcome unique American truth than "an adult consensual affair.")

And, yet, I wonder.

Imagine being a young Israeli poet and sailor, a straight man, seeking only to come to America and get a job for which you are totally unqualified. Is it such a stretch to think that you might lead yourself to believe that it is merely your boyish charm, charisma, and natural leadership qualities that persuade the heterosexual governor to take a chance on you and give you that job? Would you not expect to be desired for your "unique truth" of being an untested talent, a diamond in the rough--to be valued for what's in your mind, not your pants?

In this scenario, had the governor been a woman, eyebrows would indeed have been raised. But there is a cultural "truth" operating here, as well. The fact is that we do not ask that question of a same-sex power relationship that we would of a heterosexual one. The "who did she sleep with" question is usually aimed at women climbing the ladder--and often unfairly to those who are in fact not sleeping with the boss. Not only do we not question whether the young male intern is sleeping with the boss, but to ask the question would be seen as prima facie evidence of homophobia.

So it could be as Mr. Cipel claims. Perhaps he was blinded by his ambition to the designs Mr. McGreevey had on his body.

More damaging, Mr. McGreevey's story is patently ridiculous. The notion that he could have been somehow wronged by his lover, after having a "consensual" relationship with him, does not pass the laugh test. Were the boy a woman, there would be no question that McGreevey was the predatory party. He was the one with the power. He was the one with the job to give. He was the one receiving sexual favors. Under the theory of sexual harassment, you can't have a consensual relationship with an underling of any kind; I'm not sure if starting with the relationship and then bestowing the job makes it better or worse.

Although we may be tempted to see Mr. Cipel as a con man, preying on a powerful man in order to extort money from him, the shiny suit does not fit. The fact is that Mr. Cipel had no economic power in the relationship, and therefore is the de facto victim. Mr. McGreevey is married with a child. It is his responsibility morally to resist the wiles of even the most romantic of Israeli poets. Mr. McGreevey is a governor. It is his responsibility to resist the desire to stuff his administration with close friends and incompetent non-citizen aliens. Mr. McGreevey was an employer. It was his responsibility to resist even the most comely of young things seeking to draw him to dip his pen in the company ink. But McGreevey did not take any of his roles seriously enough to serve them well. He did not resist any of the temptations to which he was put.

For McGreevey is more than just an adulterer. He is a case in point of why our politicians should be (as the boy scouts say) morally straight in every way. As the dust settles from his sexual identity announcement, a cascade of other problems will be coming to light. It is already beginning, with the national media digging back into the Jersey papers to see the scandals it has missed.

During the Clinton administration, it was popular to pretend that a politician's sexuality was none of our business. It was said that we were obsessed with sex, and that one could be an adulterer and a liar and still a good president.

No, in fact, one cannot. Because a good president (not necessarily, please note, a "successful" or "competent" one) is also a good person. And one cannot be an adulterer (gay or straight), a liar--or, for that matter, a pederast, a murderer, or a wife-beater--and still be a good person.

It would be nice if we did not need to worry about the sexuality of politicians. Indeed, it would be nice if we did not have to worry about any of their appetites. But the fact is that their character--which includes their sexuality--has an impact on how they will do their job.

Bill Clinton's rampant predatory lust interfered with his performance as president, though many would like to deny it. As a result of his affair and his marital problems, for a year 8 hours of his day each week were taken by his therapy. As a result of his lies we spent 40 million dollars chasing a perjurer who could have just admitted guilt and be done with it.

Whether the Kerry/Edwards hair obsession and metrosexual proclivities would distract them from presidential duties is a matter of speculation. A man who makes home movies of himself pretending to be in combat, apparently for future political use, might well be overly concerned about appearances. It is clear now, though, that a gay corrupt politician is no less sleazy than a straight one--and that sexuality, whatever its form, should be separated from the people's business.