• Gay BlogAds

  • Gay News Watch

  • Chris Tweets

  • « Reprioritizing our legislative agenda | Main | More Bill Clinton revisionism »

    March 17, 2008

    Fifteen minutes and counting…

    Posted by: Chris

    Large_mcg1 Dina Matos McGreevey should have listened months ago when the alarm clock announcing her 15 minutes of accidental fame had elapsed. But when New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer appeared at a press conference with his wife Silda by his side to admit that he had hired prostitutes, Dina couldn't resist stealing a few more precious seconds.

    So there she was, on every conceivable chat show, and even on the New York Times op-ed pages, drawing suspect  moral equivalences  -- not just between philandering Spitzer and her own estranged husband, ex-New Jersey Gov. James McGreevey, who acknowledged in October 2004 that he is "a gay American." But also between herself and Silda Wall Spitzer as two wholly unsuspecting spouses, victimized by heartless men who valued sex over their marital commitments.

    We already knew that the first analogy was strained. Whatever you think of former Governor McGreevey, and I don't think very much of him, there is a substantial difference between a heterosexual husband hiring female prostitutes to cheat on his wife, and a closeted gay husband struggling with his homosexuality and cheating on his wife.

    Now it turns out that the victimized wife analogy doesn't fit either. While we don't know -- and I hope we never learn -- the details of the Spitzers' marital relationship, the McGreeveys have each written tell-all books about theirs and are now embroiled in nasty divorce proceedings.

    New06a But it was Dina's turn on the talk show circuit this past week that apparently turned the stomach of the luv guv's former driver Ted Pedersen, who is spilling the beans about a regular threesome he said he engaged in with the McGreevey's during their courtship and while they were engaged:

    "She's framed herself as a victim - yet she was a willing participant. She had complete control over what happened in her relationship," he said. "She was there, she knew what was happening, she made the moves. We all did. It's disgusting to watch her play the victim card."

    "We called it the Friday Night Special," Pedersen said. The "intense" escapades, he said, usually began with a "couple of drinks" at a local T.G.I. Friday's and culminated in "a hard-core consensual sex orgy" between the three of them at McGreevey's Woodbridge condo. …

    "He liked watching me, and she would watch me while she was [performing sex acts] with Jim," Pedersen said. "In my opinion, me being a part of their sexual relationship enhanced it for both of them."

    Pedersen lives with his girlfriend and claims he only had sexual contact with Dina during their threesomes, but those bedroom details blow a gaping hole into Dina's claim to being completely shocked her husband the governor was gay.

    A few more interesting tidbits about Pedersen's relationship to the then-governor:

    • From McGreevey aide tells of sexual trysts with ex-governor, wife, Newark Star-Ledger (March 16, 2008): "I wanted to get this out now because it was so offensive to me that she goes on television playing the victim," Pedersen said. "She's trying to make this a payday for herself. She should have told the truth about the three of us." Pedersen did not say if he was gay or bi sexual and only described having contact with Matos McGreevey during the trysts.
    • From N.J. Governor hires a dozen 'pretty boys'; big jobs, no experience needed, Bergen Record (Oct. 10, 2004): People with no real qualifications other than their proximity to the governor were awarded handsome jobs with dubious duties. As the governor's weekend aide or so-called "body man" -- a job that combines the duties of executive secretary and assistant -- Rutgers student Teddy Pedersen grew to be such a favorite of McGreevey that he was given his own room in Drumthwacket, the governor's mansion in Princeton, sources said. The governor even helped Pederson with his homework, other sources said.
    • From Matos McGreevey seeks financial information on husband's partner, Newark Star-Ledger (Jan. 11, 2008): Matos McGreevey also wants all e-mails between McGreevey's boyfriend Mark O'Donnell and McGreevey's friends, Theodore Pedersen, James Kennedy, Charles Kushner, Weiner Lesniak and Raymond Lesniak. She also wants promissory notes or other financial instruments made by McGreevey and Pedersen that shows any obligation to O'Donnell.
    • From Battlin' McGreeveys step it up, Bob Ingle Blog (Feb. 6, 2008): As part of divorce proceedings, Dina Matos wants to take a look at a financial link with Jim McGreevey's friend Theodore Pedersen. Matos McGreevey claims that a trip Pedersen took with McGreevey and McGreevey's boyfriend Mark O'Donnell to China in August 2007 was paid for out of a joint account with O'Donnell and McGreevey. Gosh, this is getting ugly.

    Actually, it apparently got much uglier than we realized. Dina subpoenaed Pedersen as part of the couple's lengthy divorce proceedings -- which have now lasted longer than their marriage -- and took his deposition, according to the New York Post: "The former driver said he believes that Dina subpoenaed him as an end-run around her estranged hubby, to see what he would say if he was called on by McGreevey's side. Pedersen said he believes that Dina never expected him to talk about their trysts."

    Gnw_lighthouse_logo_3 For related stories and breaking news, click or bookmark:



    TrackBack URL for this entry:


    1. Double T on Mar 17, 2008 1:48:41 PM:

      I find it very difficult to believe these "stories" of the wife didn't know anything. Especially is the wife is a very intelligent person ( or reasonable intelligent).

      Kinda makes you wonder what does Hillary really know about Bill's little "field trips".

    1. The Gay Species on Mar 17, 2008 3:06:01 PM:

      Perhaps YOU can explain the difference? Lying, cheating, infidelity, double-standards, use of government for personal ends, hypocrite, are shared equally between Spitzer and Fr. McGreevey. It's hypocritical to suggest "gay" makes it "different." Or "Jewish" makes it "different." Or anything makes it different. They are both cads. That the parallels are analogous in every way is Dina's right to observe. Promoting double standards is no way to influence public opinion.

    1. Double T on Mar 17, 2008 4:46:12 PM:

      Gay Species,
      The "difference" Chris is pointing out( I think ).
      Is that, if society was so tough on gays, McGreevey would have not married a woman. He would have entered into a relationship with a man. And cheating would have never entered his mind.

      (Unless of course, he turned out to be a cheating-gay-man, but let's not make up crazy situation to debate about)

      Cheating was the ONLY option his lifestyle allowed him to follow.

      Do you understand now?

    1. Out of Eygpt on Mar 17, 2008 8:51:53 PM:

      ".....there is a substantial difference between a heterosexual husband hiring female prostitutes to cheat on his wife, and a closeted gay husband struggling with his homosexuality and cheating on his wife...." ccrain

      Please Chris could you help me understand the substantial difference between two desperately lonely lost people looking for something to fix the tragically deep cavernous hole in each of their souls?
      It would seem that the only difference is the object of their respective desires; both perceived solutions being one as empty as the other.

      ".......When left to itself, human sexuality appears unconstrained and to the innocent mind shockingly polymorphous. But the hallmark of a society in which all sexual constraints have been set aside is that finally it sanctions homosexuality as well. This point is hotly disputed today, but is reflected in the wisdom of the ages. Plutarch, the first -century Greek moralist, saw libertinism to be the third and next-to-last stage in the life-cycle of a free republic before its final descent into tyranny. Edward Gibbon in eighteenth-century England understood this principle with respect to ancient Rome, but from a historian's perspective. Sigmund Freud emphasized the same principle with respect to many cultures in the West-although from a radically secular psychoanalytic perspective. For him, universal sexual repression was the price of civilization. With out constraints civilization would lose its discipline and vitality. And, of course, the Bible repeatedly shows the effects of unconstrained sexuality, such as its stories of the rise and fall of Sodom and Gomorrah, and indeed Israel itself.
      Dennis Prager, a reform Jewish cultural commentator, writes:
      Man's nature, undisciplined by values, will allow sex to dominate his life and the life of society....It is not overstated to say that the Torah's prohibition of non-marital sex made the creation of Western civilization possible. Societies that did not place boundaries around sexuality were stymied in their development. The subsequent dominance of the Western world can, to a significant extent, be attributed to the sexual revolution, initiated by Judaism and later carried forward by Christianity.
      In sum, it is a simple and sobering fact that no society that has sanctioned unconstrained sexuality has long survived...." page 18-9 Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, Jeffrey Satinover, M.D.

    1. Lucrece on Mar 17, 2008 11:15:11 PM:

      I see an incoming ban for OOE~

      "Guerra avisada no mata soldados."

    1. Double T on Mar 17, 2008 11:26:56 PM:

      Out of your Egyptian Mind,

      1) Being gay should not and does not excuse anyone from bad behavior. PERIOD. However gays are human beings, no more, no less. As human beings, they will and do have the same faults as everyone else.

      2) On a good day, Jeffrey Burke Satinover, M.D, is bat-sh-t crazy . It doesn't appear we've had many good days. You can not take a person into a lab, wave your magic wand and change their sexual orientation. You can not take a homosexual and convert him into a heterosexual anymore than you could do the reverse.

      3) Why is it, when a man cheats with a woman it’s a mid-life crisis. But when a man cheats own his wife with a man, then it’s labeled “unconstrained sexuality”. Be so good, Egypt, to please define this.

    1. North Dallas Thirty on Mar 18, 2008 3:07:55 PM:

      You can not take a homosexual and convert him into a heterosexual anymore than you could do the reverse.

      Oh, I daresay it's quite possible to do the reverse, and McGreevey's own daughter, as well as innumerable others, is demonstrable proof that quite a few gays are more than capable of having heterosexual sex.

      Furthermore, if anyone should recognize the dangers of "unconstrained sexuality", it should be the gay community; we do, after all, have the graves to prove it.

      Finally, what both Spitzer and McGreevey did falls under "unconstrained sexuality"; indeed, it would seem that Out of Egypt was making the point that they were indeed the same, and that Chris was the one claiming that they weren't.

    1. David on Mar 18, 2008 4:10:40 PM:

      If I walked around on all fours barking, and ate out of a bowl on the ground would that make me dog? A Homosexual having Heterosexual sex is still a HOMOSEXUAL.

    1. Double T on Mar 18, 2008 4:25:49 PM:

      Perhaps I needed to type slower and define certain things.

      1)Homosexual -A person who is attracted to individuals of the same gender.

      2)Heterosexual -A person who is attracted to individuals of the opposite gender.

      Just because you can MAKE yourself perform, it does not change who you are.

      NDT~ I'd also like to comment on your nasty little "graves" comment. Your comment seems to hint that AIDS patient got what they deserve. I hope you're not saying that.

      p.s. thank you David

    1. North Dallas Thirty on Mar 18, 2008 5:18:25 PM:

      If I walked around on all fours barking, and ate out of a bowl on the ground would that make me dog?

      Of course not. Even though your behavior was that of a dog, there are several things I could do -- anatomical analysis, X-rays and MRI scans, genetic mapping -- that would demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that your traits and characteristics were that of a human, not of a dog.

      Now, can you show me similar proof -- physical, genetic, and whatnot, with no reference whatsoever to behavior -- that can demonstrate conclusively and consistently the difference between a gay person and a straight person in the same way that I could demonstrate the difference between you and a dog?

      NDT~ I'd also like to comment on your nasty little "graves" comment. Your comment seems to hint that AIDS patient got what they deserve. I hope you're not saying that.

      You have a lot of nerve digging up as a shield the corpses of people who suffered because other gays couldn't be bothered to be responsible or wear a condom.

      You want to honor the memory of those who died of HIV? Quit killing off the next generation of gays the same way.

    1. Double T on Mar 18, 2008 9:22:50 PM:

      I didn't dig up any corpses. You did.

    1. David on Mar 19, 2008 11:44:25 AM:

      I know that I should just ignore you NDT, but I cannot help myself.

      You completely missed the point of my analogy. The difference between a dog and a person is one of species. We are talking about a human trait here (sexuality) which is physically defined by behavior. I cannot provide you with physical or genetic proof of homosexuality anymore than you could provide the same to me of heterosexuality. I am not a scientist. There have been studies done that have found physical differences between Homosexuals and Heterosexuals such as hormone levels in fetal development, and a difference in the size of the Hypothalamus.

    The comments to this entry are closed.

    © Citizen Crain - All Rights Reserved | Design by E.Webscapes Design Studio | Powered by: TypePad