Interviewed by 'Today' host Matt Lauer this morning, former NJ Gov. Jim McGreevey blamed the "immoral and ugly" way he acted out on his homosexuality on the fact that his parents were straight and thus couldn't serve as role models for him.
McGreevey was on to promote his new book, "The Confession."
Lauer: "Not only as governor but as a state employee, you were living a very risky life-style. Anonymous sex with random men at places like highway rest stops. You write 'I was promiscuous and sexually active in ways I consider immoral and ugly, and I justified this by telling myself I had no other choice and that my sexual urges were irrepressible.'
Asked a sympathetic Lauer: "How hard was it to try to control them?"
That's when McGreevey got off his blame-the-straight-parents defense:
"In developing a gay identity, typically your parents aren't gay, so unlike other cultural minorities, there's no one there to tell you the stories, there's no one to give you a sense of your own identity."
You might call it McGreevey's variation on the old line: if you're parents didn't have children, odds are you won't either.
By the way, did McGreevey inadvertently make an argument against gay adoption? If, as he argues, straights can't serve as good role models for gay children, how can gays serve as good role models for straight children?
In any case, isn't the gay-rights argument that there's no difference between gay and straight relationships, that's it all about one person loving another? So why couldn't straight parents serve as good role models for responsible, faithful, loving behavior regardless of the sexual orientation of their children?