Remember that epochal Times story a few weeks back about how kids share beds with parents now, till toddlerhood and puberty and beyond? Well, Karen Cassidy, the New Jersey judge handling the Jim McGreevey custody proceedings, laid down the law yesterday: You gays can have the right to get civil unioned and not to be bludgeoned or whatever, but you'll NEVER get to replicate trend pieces meant for the heteroworld! From the Daily News:
Matos McGreevey had her request for sole custody denied, and failed to stop the court from appointing a mediator to oversee Jacqueline's relationship with her parents, which McGreevey had asked for.Then, of course, there's the problem of the Bruce Webery beefcake hanging in the house Jim shares with Australian sugar daddy Mark O'Donnell...Yep, it's settled. Clearly these McGreeveys are angling to take the place ofThe Sopranos — or at least Growing up Gotti — in the tri-state family-farce consciousness:
But she did win a victory in barring her daughter from sharing a bed with her husband and his partner.
[The judge] also ruled McGreevey use "common sense" over what aspects of his lifestyle he may expose Jacqueline to, after furious complaints from her mother that he had a life-size photograph of a nude male model hanging on his bedroom wall.So wait, is the general fear that this girl is going to grow up attracted to men ? Or is there something more world-historical going on? From the AP:
One of the most contentious issues in the divorce is what the child should be exposed to. Her mother made McGreevey and his partner take down a nude photograph in their home, contends that Jacqueline should not be allowed to sleep in her father's bed, and says that the girl should not be allowed to receive communion in the Episcopal Church because she is being raised a Roman Catholic.Ah yes, the truth comes out: Ever since Henry beheaded that Boleyn girl a few years back, every political divorce, gayness-induced or not, has really been about the Rome/Anglican schism. Which don't bode well for Dina: I'm pretty sure the Bishop of Canterbury would always err on the side of more gay-sleeping.