Another Right-Wing Gay Prostitution Scandal

[Lemur]

Haven't seen a thread on this one, so I'll go ahead. Seems that the president of the National Association of Evangelicals, a man who backed Amendment 43 to ban gay marriage in Colorado, may have been paying another man for sex. (Instead of resigning for alcoholism or to spend time with his family, he's resigning because of "a cloud of accusations." Give him points for not using one of the usual excuses ...)

Is this the first right-wing gay prostitution scandal since Jeff Gannon? Or has there been one in between them?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Pastor takes leave amid allegations of gay sex

New Life Church's Ted Haggard, a backer of Amendment 43 to ban gay marriage in Colorado, says he could "not continue to minister under the cloud" of accusations.

By Eric Gorski, Felisa Cardona and Manny Gonzales
Denver Post Staff Writers

Facing shocking allegations that he paid a gay prostitute for sex, prominent Colorado Springs pastor Ted Haggard placed himself on administrative leave Thursday from his church position and resigned as president of the National Association of Evangelicals, a platform that made him a rising star in conservative politics.

Haggard, 50, said in a statement released by his 14,000- member New Life Church that he could "not continue to minister under the cloud created by the accusations made on Denver talk radio this morning."

In interviews over the past two days with KHOW talk radio, 9News and The Denver Post, Michael Forest Jones, 49, of Denver alleges he had sex on a monthly basis with Haggard over three years. Jones claimed Haggard used the name "Art," admitted he was married and used meth before the two had sex.

In an interview Wednesday with 9News, Haggard denied he'd used drugs or had gay sex, saying he's been faithful to his wife. Haggard, who has five children, could not be reached for comment Thursday.

Late Thursday, The Associated Press reported that the acting senior pastor at New Life, Ross Parsley, told KKTV-TV of Colorado Springs that Haggard admitted some of the accusations were true, but Parsley didn't elaborate.

The timing of the disclosure has stirred controversy, coming days before Colorado voters will decide on two measures related to gay rights and marriage. Haggard is a chief supporter of Amendment 43, which would define marriage as only between a man and a woman, and he has taken no position on Referendum I, which would grant domestic- partnership rights to same-sex couples.

Haggard is unquestionably a national figure. Since founding New Life Church in his basement in the 1980s, the son of an Indiana veterinarian has ascended the ranks of evangelical leaders, taking part in White House conference calls, counseling foreign leaders and being named by Time magazine as one of the nation's 25 most influential evangelicals.

Martin Nussbaum, New Life Church's attorney, emphasized that Haggard's leave and an imminent inquiry into the matter by an outside church board should not be construed as an admission of guilt but rather in keeping with church policies.

Under church bylaws, an outside "board of overseers" investigates allegations of immorality, financial misdealings or teaching heresy, Nussbaum said. The board has authority to discipline the senior pastor, remove him or restore him to ministry.

"I am voluntarily stepping aside from leadership so that the overseer process can be allowed to proceed with integrity," Haggard said in his statement. "I hope to be able to discuss this matter in more detail at a later date."

The overseers board is made up of the Rev. Larry Stockstill of Bethany World Prayer Center in Baker, La., where Haggard worked as a youth pastor more than two decades ago; the Rev. Mark Cowart of Church For All Nations in Colorado Springs; the Rev. Tim Ralph of New Covenant Fellowship in Larkspur; and the Rev. Michael Ware of Victory Church in Westminster.

"We want to know the real truth," Ware said. "We obviously hope it's not true. We want to be open, independent. There's always two sides to a story."

Ware said the group has not met and has no timetable, and it's unclear what exactly the inquiry will involve.

Haggard was replaced on an interim basis by Parsley, who has worked in senior ministry in the church for 15 years. "People need to be patient and allow this process to unfold as it was designed to," Parsley said in a statement.

In a prepared statement Thursday, Focus on the Family founder James Dobson rapped the news media for reporting a rumor "based on nothing but one man's allegation," referred to Haggard as a friend and suggested the timing of the story was meant to influence the outcome of the Amendment 43 vote.

"(Haggard) has shown a great deal of grace under these unfortunate circumstances, quickly turning this matter over to his church for an independent investigation," Dobson said. "That is a testament to the character I have seen him exhibit over and over again."

Later Thursday, a news conference in downtown Colorado Springs that was to feature civic and religious leaders voicing support for Haggard was canceled for reasons that are unclear.

For 2 1/2 hours Thursday night, church elders met to discuss the situation. One man, who did not identify himself, said the congregation expects Haggard will address them during weekend services.

At Haggard's home just a short drive from the church, a gate blocking the driveway was locked, and television crews set up across the road.

Jones told The Post that Haggard contacted him about three years ago through an ad Jones placed in a gay newspaper or on the website Rentboy.com.

Jones said Haggard introduced himself as being from Kansas City, but Jones said he later knew otherwise because his caller ID showed the calls as coming from Colorado Springs pay phones. But he said he didn't confront him because Haggard was a client.

They met at least once a month at Jones' Denver apartment, and Haggard paid cash, Jones said. "He was very nice and very soft-spoken," Jones said. "We never talked about anything heavy-duty."

Jones alleged Haggard snorted a small amount of methamphetamine that he brought with him at least a dozen times to enhance the sexual pleasure. Haggard told 9News he's never done drugs.

About six months ago, Jones said, he was watching TV when he saw a History Channel program on the Antichrist that included Haggard as an expert. He researched Haggard on the Internet. "Once I pulled him up, I'm going, 'He's big."'

Rob Brendle, an associate New Life pastor, said Haggard fought to make Amendment 43 only define marriage, breaking with other evangelical leaders who favored a broader measure barring domestic partnerships. Haggard has said marriage deserves special status, while civil protections should be a separate issue.

"He has been the person within the evangelical community in Colorado Springs, more than any other leader, been the defender of the rights of homosexuals with his work on the language of the amendment," Brendle said. "If there is a hammer who has been driving this nail, it's not Ted."

As for Jones' allegations, Brendle said, "I have no question in my mind that everything this man says is false. I know Ted to be a man of the utmost integrity and the highest moral character."

[Fragony]

With teeth like that you are asking for trouble

[Lemur]

More details.

"It made me angry that here's someone preaching about gay marriage and going behind the scenes having gay sex," he said.

Jones claimed Haggard paid him to have sex nearly every month over three years. He said he advertised himself as an escort on the Internet and was contacted by a man who called himself Art, who snorted methamphetamine before their sexual encounters to heighten his experience.

[Don Corleone]

The council of elders at his church have launched an investegation. Apparently, Pastor Ted has allowed that some of the allegations are true, though not the main one that he repeatedly paid a prostitute for gay sex. This means either Pastor Ted:

-Paid a prostitute for straight sex
or
-Had consenusal gay sex.

Either way, he's toast.

I feel really bad for this guy's wife. It's always the wife that ends up suffering in these public sex scandals.

[Scurvy]

whats terrible is that if he was honest about it from the start...no problem (apart from he might never of had a wife - but she suffers most from this anyway)

[Ronin]

I always have found that alot of the people that take extreme conservative positions when it comes to sex and "morality" are hiding something and overcompensating for it....

well....something for the psychiatrists to ponder...

is there a Sigmund Freud in the house???

[Crazed Rabbit]

A polygraph says his accuser is a liar:

Haggard's accuser fails lie detector
By Mike McPhee
Denver Post Staff Writer
Ted Haggard's accuser failed a polygraph test early this morning about the truthfulness of his accusations that he had had a three-year homosexual affair with the influential Colorado Springs minister.

The test was given to Michael Jones, 49, an admitted male prostitute, who made the allegations on the Peter Boyles Show on radio station KHOW Thursday morning.

The shocking allegations were denied by Haggard, who told KUSA-9News he never took part in a homosexual affair and had always been faithful to his wife, with whom he has 5 children.

So Boyles invited Jones to take a polygraph test at 5 a.m. this morning.

The test administrator, John Kresnik, said Jones' score indicated "deceptions" in his answers. However, Kresnik said he doubted the accuracy of the test he administered because of the recent stress on Jones and his inability to eat or sleep, according to KHOW producer Greg Hollenback.

Kresnik suggested that Jones be re-tested early next week after he was rested.

Seems somewhat likely its just some filthy liar trying to smear a guy because of his prominence and gay marriage opposition.

CR

[Don Corleone]

So your point Scurvy is that the minister is a liar because he's a homosexual but doesn't support gay marriage?

Does the homosexual community support gay marriage 100%? Serious question... I went to Pew, Zogby and a few others, didn't see the question broken out by 'openly gay'.

[Lemur]

A polygraph says his accuser is a liar:

Well this is interesting! I can understand why a nobody would accuse a prominent man, certainly. But if that's the case, why did Haggard resign? Normally people who are being unfairly accused stick it out. I expect there's going to be more emerging, and I haven't got a notion what the upshot will be ...

[Ser Clegane]

Perhaps this part of the article should be emphasized:

However, Kresnik said he doubted the accuracy of the test he administered because of the recent stress on Jones and his inability to eat or sleep

It's always a bit disgusting though how things like this always come up shortly before elections - go figure...

[Don Corleone]

Well this is interesting! I can understand why a nobody would accuse a prominent man, certainly. But if that's the case, why did Haggard resign? Normally people who are being unfairly accused stick it out. I expect there's going to be more emerging, and I haven't got a notion what the upshot will be ...

You know, I always hate this argument, from any side, yours or ours. If the guy resigns, everyone jumps up and says "see, he was guilty". If he doesn't, the rhetoric becomes "See, he's circling the wagons. He should resign and let the congregation/congress/whatever get back to normal until the investegation is over". It's a no-win argument.

The pastor said he was stepping down until the investegation is concluded. That's far from resigning his position in disgrace, Lemur, but 2 points for trying to milk it.

That being said, be really careful there, CR. The minister who stepped up for Ted Haggard has already said that the Haggard admitted some of the allegations were true, but wouldn't specify which ones.

[Fragony]

Does the homosexual community support gay marriage 100%? Serious question... I went to Pew, Zogby and a few others, didn't see the question broken out by 'openly gay'.

A good friend of mine is gay, seems to run in the family somehow, he for one does not. You should hear him about gay parades and that girly fag behaviour, he hates it with a passion.

[Don Corleone]

The sad fact is, we shouldn't need constitutional marriage ammendments. If the courts would quit arbitrarily dictating to the rest of the country, the elected body politic included, we wouldn't have to have such divisive ballot measures.

[Lemur]

You know, I always hate this argument, from any side, yours or ours. If the guy resigns, everyone jumps up and says "see, he was guilty". If he doesn't, the rhetoric becomes "See, he's circling the wagons. He should resign and let the congregation/congress/whatever get back to normal until the investegation is over". It's a no-win argument.

The pastor said he was stepping down until the investigation is concluded. That's far from resigning his position in disgrace, Lemur, but 2 points for trying to milk it.

If I'm going to be a good Wisconsinite, I have to know how to milk. That should be obvious.

Hey Don, if I were writing for the general public, or if I were engaged in this issue in any substantial way, I would be much more circumspect in how I addressed the particulars. But in situation after situation this year we've had people resigning, signing into rehab, or needing to spend more time with their families, and the vast majority of them have been found guilty. Some are now in jail.

I understand how the resigning issue feels like dirty pool to you, but it's hard not to take it into account when the "he said/he said" starts up.

Honestly, I feel bad for Haggard and his family. My best guess is that he was deep in the closet, and engaging in risky, self-destructive behavior, which is far from uncommon when people are in denial. And there's something tragic about a closeted gay man who makes anti-homosexual rhetoric a centerpiece of his career. Think Roy Cohn.

The closet = bad.

[Fragony]

The sad fact is, we shouldn't need constitutional marriage ammendments. If the courts would quit arbitrarily dictating to the rest of the country, the elected body politic included, we wouldn't have to have such divisive ballot measures.

I don't know for sure, but it seems like marriage in the USA is more church-based then it is here. American gays should respect that, and be happy with just having the same constitutional rights), tax benefits and such. Maybe the gays just want too much and want it too fast? They shouldn't, it's disrespectful.

[Don Corleone]

I don't know for sure, but it seems like marriage in the USA is more church-based then it is here. American gays should respect that, and be happy with just having the same constitutional rights), tax benefits and such. Maybe the gays just want too much and want it too fast? They shouldn't, it's disrespectful.

It's a dual system. You get married by the State and by the Church. Your legal marriage is a contract, like any other. Your church marriage is obviously something more... a promise before your divinity that you will love, honor & obey said person for the rest of time.

A majority of Americans disagree with gay marriage outright, but agree with conferring the legal rights of marriage onto homosexual couples (or polygamist couples or any other union of consenting adults). I fall into this 'civil union' compromise. Why don't we just approve gay marriage directly?

Because there's only one reason gay couples wouldn't be satisfied with civil unions, and that is that their next step is forcing the recognition of their 'marriage' by all churches. I think marriage belongs in a church and civil unions belong at town hall. I think the law has a right to dictate the latter, but the church itself should dictate the former. If we recognize 'gay marriage', any church that refuses to perform those services is going to find itself hauled into court to answer discrimination lawsuits until they concede or go bankrupt, ala the Boy Scouts. It's this that I oppose.

[mystic brew]

how slow and how much should gays ask for, then?

[Lemur]

Personally, I think that government should get out of the marriage business. (This is one of the 39,572 reasons Lemur can never run for public office.) If I had it my way, all of the legal niceties (inheritance, hospital visits, health bennies, etc.) would fall under a civil union contract, and "marriage" would be entirely the province of the churches.

It goes without saying that any politician who suggested such a thing would be stoned to death in the public square.

[Lemur]

If we recognize 'gay marriage', any church that refuses to perform those services is going to find itself hauled into court to answer discrimination lawsuits until they concede or go bankrupt, ala the Boy Scouts. It's this that I oppose.

Whoa, sir, please step away from the cow and take your hands off the udders ... what possible evidence do you have to back up such a long-range agenda? Gay people want to get married so they can sue churches into oblivion? What the ... huh? I've never heard that one from any gay activist ever.

[Don Corleone]

If I'm going to be a good Wisconsinite, I have to know how to milk. That should be obvious.

Hey Don, if I were writing for the general public, or if I were engaged in this issue in any substantial way, I would be much more circumspect in how I addressed the particulars. But in situation after situation this year we've had people resigning, signing into rehab, or needing to spend more time with their families, and the vast majority of them have been found guilty. Some are now in jail.

I understand how the resigning issue feels like dirty pool to you, but it's hard not to take it into account when the "he said/he said" starts up.

Honestly, I feel bad for Haggard and his family. My best guess is that he was deep in the closet, and engaging in risky, self-destructive behavior, which is far from uncommon when people are in denial. And there's something tragic about a closeted gay man who makes anti-homosexual rhetoric a centerpiece of his career. Think Roy Cohn.

The closet = bad.

If there were any possible alternative that Reverend Haggard could take that wouldn't paint him as automatically guilty in your editorializing, I might be willing to allow you the point. But no matter what he does, you're going to use that as ammo that he must be guilty... (and 'you' have become representative of the court of public opinion, no offense to you in particular). If he resigns, he's guilty, because he didn't fight. If he doesn't resign, he must be guilty, because if he was innocent, he would step down until he was cleared (which, is exactly what Pastor Haggard has done, by the way, he didn't outright resign).

All I'm saying is that one of my employees could accuse me of sexual harrassment tomorrow. I could recuse myself of my managerial duties until the case is settled.... according to the court of public opinion, that would be an open admission of guilt. But if I stayed in my role as manager, while the case was going on, the court of public opinion would claim that I was abusing my position and should step aside until the investegation is complete. What can I possibly do to defend myself?

[Don Corleone]

Whoa, sir, please step away from the cow and take your hands off the udders ... what possible evidence do you have to back up such a long-range agenda? Gay people want to get married so they can sue churches into oblivion? What the ... huh? I've never heard that one from any gay activist ever.

Once gay marriage is established as a right, any church that doesn't perform or recognize their marriage will be guilty of discrimination. And just as GLAAD as sued the Boy Scouts practically out of existence, they'd start suing the Episcopal Church of America, the Roman Catholic Church, the United Methodist Church and any other organization that doesn't perform gay marriages. GLAAD and BIGALA have a history of using the courts to force all organizations, including private ones, to accept their lifestyle and renounce all ethical/moral codes that preclude homosexuality.

I agree with you 100% that 'marriage', as I define it (the divine version) has no business in government.

[Lemur]

If there were any possible alternative that Reverend Haggard could take that wouldn't paint him as automatically guilty in your editorializing, I might be willing to allow you the point. But no matter what he does, you're going to use that as ammo that he must be guilty...

Not true. I remember when a very popular Cardinal in Chicago was accused by a man of molestation in Chicago, back when I was a teenager (you know, the 1920s). Anyway, the Cardinal stood his ground, the man confessed that the allegations were false, and the Cardinal forgave him. It was one of the more Christian acts I'd ever seen.

Okay Don, if it's going to rub you hackles in the wrong direction, we'll take the pastor's semi-resignation off the table. Does that really change anything?

[Don Corleone]

Not true. I remember when a very popular Cardinal in Chicago was accused by a man of molestation in Chicago, back when I was a teenager (you know, the 1920s). Anyway, the Cardinal stood his ground, the man confessed that the allegations were false, and the Cardinal forgave him. It was one of the more Christian acts I'd ever seen.

Okay Don, if it's going to rub you hackles in the wrong direction, we'll take the pastor's semi-resignation off the table. Does that really change anything?

I'd even settle for the 'semi-' qualifier you've added. Hey, the guy did something. The pastor that took over for him admitted as much. I'm not saying this guy should get to take a walk. I'm saying we don't know how deep it runs yet, that's all. Does this case follow a distinct pattern in its early stages that typically, in similar past ones winds up with the public figure coming clean and admitting his misdeeds? Sure. But you're jumping the gun by a lot.

As for your cardinal example, good for you, but I guarantee every night on the news, there was one talking head after another calling on the Cardinal to step down for the duration of the investegation, for the good of the Church. That's how it's always presented... do it for the good of 'so-and-so'. But sitting there, determinedly taking the charges and remaining in your position... it always gets villified.

[Lemur]

Text of the letter sent to the New Life Church congregation members:

Dear New Lifers and friends of New Life Church,

Many of you have expressed concern about today's news regarding our pastor. Thank you all for your prayers and support, and for your concern for our church family. As you've likely heard by now, Pastor Ted has voluntarily placed himself on administrative leave as New Life's senior pastor to allow our external board of overseers to work effectively. Below is the statement that we released to the media on Thursday afternoon.

Since that time, the board of overseers has met with Pastor Ted. It is important for you to know that he confessed to the overseers that some of the accusations against him are true. He has willingly and humbly submitted to the authority of the board of overseers, and will remain on administrative leave during the course of the investigation.

I am serving as the acting senior pastor of New Life Church. I met with the pastoral staff and elders Thursday night, and I assure you that the leadership team is strong and united. We remain resolute in our commitment to serving New Life Church and the people of our community.

Please continue to keep Ted and Gayle and their family in your prayers.

I love serving God with you all,

Ross Parsley

[Goofball]

Personally, I think that government should get out of the marriage business. (This is one of the 39,572 reasons Lemur can never run for public office.) If I had it my way, all of the legal niceties (inheritance, hospital visits, health bennies, etc.) would fall under a civil union contract, and "marriage" would be entirely the province of the churches.

Hallelujah brotha!

I completely agree with that position. The funny thing is, I have heard a number of our conservative brethren preach from the same hymnal. So why can't some smart politico put two and two together and make this happen?

[Goofball]

Once gay marriage is established as a right, any church that doesn't perform or recognize their marriage will be guilty of discrimination. And just as GLAAD as sued the Boy Scouts practically out of existence, they'd start suing the Episcopal Church of America, the Roman Catholic Church, the United Methodist Church and any other organization that doesn't perform gay marriages. GLAAD and BIGALA have a history of using the courts to force all organizations, including private ones, to accept their lifestyle and renounce all ethical/moral codes that preclude homosexuality.

I agree with you 100% that 'marriage', as I define it (the divine version) has no business in government.

Several countries (mine included) have had gay marriage established as a right for some time now, and there have been no instances of anything like what you describe.

Your argument holds no water.

[Tribesman]

I don't get it , whats the story here ?
the hag is against gay marriage , his rent boy gets upset and goes public on their bum-fun .
So did the hag make a promise to marry his whore as soon as the law got changed then did his best to not allow the law to get changed , thus leaving his future bride/groom sitting on the shelf while he himself got back in the closet .

[Don Corleone]

The one group that I don't feel bad for is his congregation. Honestly, if they are anything but the shallowest of believers (the seeds that fell on the path, to paraphrase a pretty wise guy I know), they'd recognize that all humans are fallible and their faith should be in the Almighty, not their pastor. I love some of the ministers and many of the priests I've come to know in my life. But in the end, they all have their faults. They all put their pants on one leg at a time, so to speak. Pastor Haggard's shortcomings may be troubling, and they may cause him to lose the mantle of authority, but they shouldn't be creating any 'crisis of faith' in the faithful. You might lose faith in the man's ministry, but the man's ministry wasn't God, so your faith in God, if it's real, shouldn't be shaken.

[Don Corleone]

Several countries (mine included) have had gay marriage established as a right for some time now, and there have been no instances of anything like what you describe.

Your argument holds no water.

These countries also didn't sue the Boy Scouts and other organizations that don't condone homosexual behavior out of existence. The American courts are a strange and unique place that defy comparison to other civilized countries.

[Ronin]

It's a dual system. You get married by the State and by the Church. Your legal marriage is a contract, like any other. Your church marriage is obviously something more... a promise before your divinity that you will love, honor & obey said person for the rest of time.

A majority of Americans disagree with gay marriage outright, but agree with conferring the legal rights of marriage onto homosexual couples (or polygamist couples or any other union of consenting adults). I fall into this 'civil union' compromise. Why don't we just approve gay marriage directly?

Because there's only one reason gay couples wouldn't be satisfied with civil unions, and that is that their next step is forcing the recognition of their 'marriage' by all churches. I think marriage belongs in a church and civil unions belong at town hall. I think the law has a right to dictate the latter, but the church itself should dictate the former. If we recognize 'gay marriage', any church that refuses to perform those services is going to find itself hauled into court to answer discrimination lawsuits until they concede or go bankrupt, ala the Boy Scouts. It's this that I oppose.

your basic system is the same we have over here...except we refer to what happens in the town hall as a "civil marriage"...

but I still fail to see the problem with allowing gays to marry in a church..wouldn´t the situation be the same that goes on with heterosexuals right now?


Explanation:

if a heterosexual is married by church X, that marriage isn´t necessarily recognized by church Y.

(note: by church I mean any faith that normally holds marriage, be it christian or not)

now...

if a homosexual finds a church that is willing to marry him (let´s call this church Z) then his marriage is recognized by church Z but not by others...


if a homossexual can sue a church for not recognizing is marriage (which I don´t believe would stick in court anyway) isn´t the heterossexual I describe in exactly the same position and capable of doing the same?....so what´s the diference?

a civil marriage should be recognized by the state....and each church should have the liberty to decide what they accept or not..I agree with you.....but a marriage is a marriage...and using euphemisms just to apease people that don´t agree with it isn´t a helpfull stance in my opinion.