Another Right-Wing Gay Prostitution Scandal

[Lemur]

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.

Or as one Christian blogger put it (with unfortunate phrasing), "Jesus’ earthly representatives have a long history of blowing it."

[Goofball]

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.

Sorry, I didn't realize that you were limiting your statements to the U.S. But I still believe your fears are far-fetched. I think that in the U.S. in particular, that "wall of separation between church and state" that many conservatives rail against as being artificial and not interpreted correctly would actually work in their favor in such a court case. I think any U.S. judge would be loathe to start ruling that churches must alter their theology to suit law.

[Ronin]

Or as one Christian blogger put it (with unfortunate phrasing), "Jesus’ earthly representatives have a long history of blowing it."

*must.....resist.....urge to crack obvious joke*....

aww...the dark side of the force lost this time

[Don Corleone]

Sorry, I didn't realize that you were limiting your statements to the U.S. But I still believe your fears are far-fetched. I think that in the U.S. in particular, that "wall of separation between church and state" that many conservatives rail against as being artificial and not interpreted correctly would actually work in their favor in such a court case. I think any U.S. judge would be loathe to start ruling that churches must alter their theology to suit law.

I disagree. There's plenty of precedence of the courts stepping in and dictating to private organizations what they can and cannot employ as policies. This is the whole segregation argument, and courts have never respected the difference between public and private organizations when ordering an end to segregation (I would argue they have a responsiblity in the former, they have no standing in the latter).

[Don Corleone]

Okay, Goofball, let me ask you... If I'm so off the wall with my marriage versus civil unions theory, why IS it so important to GLAAD that the end goal is 'gay-marriage' not civil unions (which they actually oppose, as they think it dilutes the issue). Why can't we move everyone, straight, gay, polygamist, any group of consenting adults into a generic 'civil union' type agreement that effectively ends state-sponsored marriage for straight couples and confers equal benefits and responsiblities on any couple or group of consenting adults that so chooses to be defined?

[macsen rufus]

A(n alleged) hypocritical evangelist -- now there's a first

More seriously, there's a reason polygraphs have no legal standing, at least in the UK. It can maybe tell that you are stressed, but not WHY - some people just find questioning, or TV appearances stressful. About as reliable as torture.

Now if Mr Jones had been smart, he'd have tooled up with some cameras or similar, would have made his allegations more credible.

And since when did hookers of any flavour worry so much about marriage rights?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.

I like!

Any chance that the Lemury version of civil unions would NOT involve yet another tax -- since the fee for a marriage license is simply a tax called a fee so that you don't remember that you are being taxed again.

[Lemur]

If I'm so off the wall with my marriage versus civil unions theory, why IS it so important to GLAAD that the end goal is 'gay-marriage' not civil unions (which they actually oppose, as they think it dilutes the issue). Why can't we move everyone, straight, gay, polygamist, any group of consenting adults into a generic 'civil union' type agreement that effectively ends state-sponsored marriage for straight couples and confers equal benefits and responsiblities on any couple or group of consenting adults that so chooses to be defined?

I wasn't aware that GLAAD opposed civil unions, but I'll take your word for it. One reason they would oppose civil unions for everyone would be that such a law would have zero chance of passing, perhaps?

I'm still not won over by the litigation agenda argument. Every proponent of gay marriage that I've read has had much more practical concerns on their minds. They want to be able to share health bennies, pass on property when they die, have the right of medical power of attorney, etc. They want the same deal that committed couples get when they're straight. I don't know, I think you might need to produce some essay or literature about the plans to sue the Catholic Church into oblivion. If that's the plan, surely there are some high-placed people discussing it, and I doubt it's been kept private. Extremist groups usually broadcast their agenda.

Short of some sort of evidence, I'm going to have to file your theory in the "Possible But Highly Unlikely" folder.

[Goofball]

I disagree. There's plenty of precedence of the courts stepping in and dictating to private organizations what they can and cannot employ as policies. This is the whole segregation argument, and courts have never respected the difference between public and private organizations when ordering an end to segregation (I would argue they have a responsiblity in the former, they have no standing in the latter).

Dictating to private organizations? Yes. Churches? No. There is no enshrinement in the American legal tradition of a "Wall of separation between boy scout and state."

Okay, Goofball, let me ask you... If I'm so off the wall with my marriage versus civil unions theory, why IS it so important to GLAAD that the end goal is 'gay-marriage' not civil unions (which they actually oppose, as they think it dilutes the issue). Why can't we move everyone, straight, gay, polygamist, any group of consenting adults into a generic 'civil union' type agreement that effectively ends state-sponsored marriage for straight couples and confers equal benefits and responsiblities on any couple or group of consenting adults that so chooses to be defined?

Because their position (with which I disagree) is that the semantics of the situation are very important. They don't want mainstream society to be able to look down their noses at their marriages and whisper "Silly little fags, thinking their civil union actually means that they are married like us. Tee-hee."

But my experience leads me to believe that their position is fringe when compared to "mainstream" gay thinking. I don't disagree that they might attempt legal action to force churches to do their bidding, but I think that any such attempts would be given very short shrift by the courts.

And if your fears are true, why hasn't the Catholic Church been forced by the courts to allow their priests to marry? Or to accept female priests?

[Ronin]

Okay, Goofball, let me ask you... If I'm so off the wall with my marriage versus civil unions theory, why IS it so important to GLAAD that the end goal is 'gay-marriage' not civil unions (which they actually oppose, as they think it dilutes the issue). Why can't we move everyone, straight, gay, polygamist, any group of consenting adults into a generic 'civil union' type agreement that effectively ends state-sponsored marriage for straight couples and confers equal benefits and responsiblities on any couple or group of consenting adults that so chooses to be defined?

I think the problem is the moral point that they are being kept from something just because they are gay and that shouldn´t happen....
It´s like saying "why couldn´t that black lady just sit in the back of the bus? the back and the front are going to the same place aren´t they" (I know the comparison is an exageration.....just making a point)

as for you proposition of moving everyone down to a "civil union" level....I´d be fine with it.....but i´m neither religious or gay...so I´m not informed enough to say if both groups would accept that or not...

[Don Corleone]

Dictating to private organizations? Yes. Churches? No. There is no enshrinement in the American legal tradition of a "Wall of separation between boy scout and state."

Brother, please. I can make that argument without even trying... "How long will we allow this federally subsidized institution of hate continue to disparage and turn around the very people that fund it's existence? Because every tax exemption is a subsidy, people, these bigots need to pay!" The courts have no problems regulating what churches can and cannot preach. They regularly rule that Christian Scientists have no right to refuse medical treatment.

And if your fears are true, why hasn't the Catholic Church been forced by the courts to allow their priests to marry? Or to accept female priests?

Because nobody has a vested interest in forcing priests to marry. Thus far, the groundswell for female priests just hasn't been there, but give it time. I wouldn't be surprised to find the court ordering female priests in a decade or so.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well, he's admitted to buying (but not using) meth, and getting a massage from the guy after he was refered by a Denver hotel.

A bit of a stretch from 'right wing gay prostitution scandal'.

Crazed Rabbit

[Lemur]

CR, it would be an interesting experiment to come home to your wife and say, "Baby, I bought some crystal meth, but I'm not going to use it, and oh, I paid for a massage from a male escort, but that's all there is to it."

The reactions should be instructive.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Considering the referal- did he know the guy was a prostitute, or did he just think he was a massuese (sp?!)?

And yes, its not good, but not as bad as perviously foretold.

Crazed Rabbit

[Don Corleone]

Yeah, I think we can put a fork in this guy. He bought crystal meth. Does he even remember if he got jiggy with the masseusse? And come on, a massage from a gay prostitute? That just has happy ending written all over it. This sounds like one of those 1/2 way confessions... I'll tell you enough to make you believe I'm telling the truth but not enough to get into any serious trouble.

[Kralizec]

I smoked pot once, but I didn't inhale.

[Scurvy]

[Ronin]

I smoked pot once, but I didn't inhale.

'Bill Clinton does not inhale marijuana, right? You bet. Like I chew on LSD but I don't swallow it.
-Hunter S. Thompson

[Lemur]

BeliefNet has posted a video Haggard recorded about the importance of marriage and the need to find partners of the opposite sex. Kinda sad to see it now.

Linky.

[Prince of the Poodles]

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'.

No. Definitely not.

A lot of us realize that our situation is not the norm.

I, for one, would be perfectly content with slight alterations of the laws already on the books that recognize that 2 people, regardless of gender, can be committed to eachother in the eyes of the state.

These alterations include things such as some tax laws, benefits, medical and hospital issues, and some other things.

"Gay marriage or nothing" is being pushed by a faction in the gay community that is NOT representative of all of us. The gay pride!!!, GLAAD type people are usually loud and proud - and also obnoxious.



As for this guy. He is the most disgusting type of human being. Not only will this crush his wife and kids, but he obviously does know how it is for gay people and still chose to hurt them to further his own career.

Because of him, nobody in this issue comes out looking good.. gays or evangicals.

[Lemur]

I, for one, would be perfectly content with slight alterations of the laws already on the books that recognize that 2 people, regardless of gender, can be committed to eachother in the eyes of the state.

These alterations include things such as some tax laws, benefits, medical and hospital issues, and some other things.

This is exactly what I've heard from every gay person I know. There's no indication of a deeper agenda, although without a doubt some fringe types will be demanding all sorts of odd things.

The refrain I've read and heard from gay people is that they would just like to enjoy some of the basic partner privileges that affect their finances, health care and personal legal rights. Nothing too crazy, and certainly nothing about some scheme to bring down every church that doesn't fly a rainbow flag.

Again, without some evidence of this grand conspiracy, I'm going to have to file it with the Flat Earthers and the Eloi/Morlock theory.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Essentially, "civil union" as being described is what is called marriage now right? As in legal marriage?

I don't see the difference in being for gay marriage or being for civil union beyond the name.

[whyidie]

Well, he's admitted to buying (but not using) meth, and getting a massage from the guy after he was refered by a Denver hotel.

A bit of a stretch from 'right wing gay prostitution scandal'.

Crazed Rabbit

You must have loved Bill Clinton. Or do you only like the Kool Aid when its colored red ?

[Major Robert Dump]

So, like what if he had only written about gay sex in a critically acclaimed book, would that, like, disqaulify him for being in a leadership position even if he had previously, like, been the Secretary of the Navy? I was just wondering.

Also, letting a guy you know is gay massage your back while you are high on crystal meth does not make you gay, I don't know where you people get off with your finger pointing.

[Goofball]

Also, letting a guy you know is gay massage your back while you are high on crystal meth does not make you gay, I don't know where you people get off with your finger pointing.

Siggied!

[whyidie]

So, like what if he had only written about gay sex in a critically acclaimed book, would that, like, disqaulify him for being in a leadership position even if he had previously, like, been the Secretary of the Navy? I was just wondering.

He would only have been disqualified if he didn't write about giant amazonian sized women who had truth lassos and special non misogynistic jewelry that deflects bullets . And fly around in invisible jets. Thats important.

[Lemur]

Interesting clip of Richard Dawkins interviewing Haggard. Basically, Haggard goes nuclear on the British scientist. Fascinating stuff. Sort of how I always pictured a conversation with Navarros would go in person ...

[Crazed Rabbit]

Bah, Dawkins seems to think evolution disproves God, an idea more irrational than those he rallies against.

CR

[Tribesman]

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.

Wow that church is quick with its investigations .
It has now dismissed him .
naughty little false preacher

[Lemur]

Yup, it appears that his board has concluded "he has committed sexually immoral conduct." I guess it's better to have it out and done with, than to drag it out for weeks.

In a fascinating and insane twist on reality, an NRO columnist is arguing that a meth-sniffing, wife-cheating, closet-living homophobe is morally superior to an openly gay man. Twisted logic? You bet. Read all about it.