SFGate.com 's Steve Yuhas takes a biting look at the James McGreevey scandal five-days-after, "Political Lies and Personal Lives: The difference between courage and expediency":

Since McGreevey's announcement, we have learned much about what was going on behind the scenes. But if you listened only to his speech on Thursday, you would think that he was resigning because he is gay. If you listen to gay activists, you would think that he deserves to remain in office because he is gay.

What we witnessed with McGreevey was not a courageous, honest or an unfortunate man finally coming to terms with the demons of his closeted life. What we witnessed was a cowardly attempt to deflect attention from a scandal- laden administration that gay organizations have decided to ignore because they can now add a gay governor to their list of openly gay public officials.

...McGreevey is an opportunist who got caught living a lie; there is a big difference in having the courage and honesty to be an openly gay politician and being a cowardly cheat who is forced to admit his sexuality because the house of cards is crumbling.

...I'm baffled by gay organizations who describe coming out while staring down the barrel of a gun as a courageous act. There are closeted people serving in all walks of life, but to make heroes out of men and women who lie their way to the top and come out under pressure is akin to praising a thief who admits stealing after seeing that the deed has been caught on film.

Frankly, I agree with Yuhas. McGreevey's neatly choreographed "I Am A Gay American" presentation has been revealed to be nothing but a self-serving veneer for his emerging political scandal, and gay Americans everywhere should be cautious of blindly aligning themselves with this new "poster boy." He's not, all punning aside, someone who appears to be an upstanding kind of guy.

An example of what bugs me about the media's coverage of this? The Monday after this story broke, CNN.com's ubiquitous front page QuickPoll carried this loaded question under the headlines describing the corrupt McGreevey backstory: "Would you vote for a gay politician?" CNN's QuickPoll's can be notoriously backhanded, but this was a cheap a shot as it gets. Can you imagine the kerfuffle if some politician of a different minority association was involved in a similar scandal, and the question read: "Would you vote for a Black [female, Asian, Jewish, foreign-born, Catholic, what have you] politician?"

Yuhas concludes,

For all of the complaining about gays being refused the right to marry, it is shocking that the bonds of matrimony that McGreevey broke are of so little consequence to gay activists that they ignore them in their press releases and act as if the adulterous affair between McGreevey and Cipel is simply collateral damage in the coming-out process. More important than the vow a man makes to his wife or the promises made to constituents, the only thing that matters to gay activists is the final tally of out-of-the-closet politicians.

It will not take much time before McGreevey is on a speaking tour of college campuses or out signing copies of his autobiography. It is almost certain that he will be invited to be the grand marshal of a gay parade next year. But if gays and lesbians were truly concerned about marriage and truly desired the privilege of entering into the most important of unions, you would think they'd be less enamored by McGreevey. The pressure on McGreevey to leave office before Nov. 15 continues, and if gay activists were wise, they would join the chorus.

I concur. Provided the allegations are true - especially the ones regarding McGreevey's fraudulent political appointment of Golan Cipel to a crucial security post - McGreevey should do the truly honorable thing now, and resign immediately. Any politician in such dire straits would be compelled to do so, regardless of their sexual orientation.

---