A follow up...

...to the Adultery and Family Values post from two weeks ago, where I questioned whether gay advocates would condone and/or encourage gays already in established heterosexual familes (like NJ Governor McGreevey) to leave them for same-sex lovers.

Here's one example, from noted journalist Andrew Sullivan:

"A closeted gay man trying to pretend he's straight eventually breaks down and reveals the truth under threat of blackmail from a lover. How many times has that happened? Worse, McGreevey tried to spin it as an advance for gay rights. Nope. What the gay rights movement is trying to achieve is an end to these kinds of decptions and lies and phony marriages."

So...Gov. McGreevey's same-sex attraction makes his marriage to his wife 'phony', does it? It's impossible for a gay man to be a good husband and father to his wife and kids, then, Andrew? Where did his two kids come from if McGreevey was only "pretending" to be straight? Should McGreevey stop the "deception and lies" and leave his wife and kids for a same-sex lover? Mr. Sullivan appears to say yes.

Side note: Mr. Sullivan also mentions a recent speech by Sheri Dew, former counselor in the LDS Relief Society, comparing the fight against same-sex marriage to the fight against Nazism. My views on same-sex marriage have been available for a while now, and although I have great respect for Sister Dew, I'll have to side with Andrew on this one... Quoting from myself:

"Gay marriage can and should be opposed, but 99% of any detrimental influence gay marriage brings to society is suffered by gays themselves--mostly in terms of them being less likely to obey the commandments of God--and not by you and me. That's reason enough to stand against it, but not enough to justify the hyper-exaggerated prophecies of doom and destruction to all families worldwide you hear from its most staunch opponents. Legalizing gay marriage in some or all parts of the US is not the end of the world, and will be more of a reflection than a cause of the lack of morals in society."

Sister Dew mentions being 'heartsick' at seeing a gay couple getting married with their adopted daughters, asking "Is there any chance that, as adults, they could expect to marry and enjoy a healthy relationship with a man, including rearing children together?" Hmmm...I don't follow you here. Those two adopted girls would still be raised by the two gay men even without them having a piece of paper with their names on it--so what does their relationship have to do with opposing gay marriage? And what in the world leads Sister Dew to believe that a girl raised by two gay men has "no chance whatsoever" of getting married to a man in the future and having kids? Since when does having a gay parent make one guaranteed (or even more likely) to have same-sex attraction themselves?

UPDATE: Left leaning Mark Kleiman has also picked up on Sister Dew's speech, as has Times & Seasons. I don't agree with Kleiman all that often on issues, but I still can't defend Sister Dew on this one...