Mark Pietrzyk's study critiquing the Family Research Council et al. on the alleged homosexuality/pedophilia link is now on the web. In "Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse: Science, Religion, and the Slippery Slope," Pietrzyk writes:
In response to the scandal involving former Congressman Mark Foley, a number of conservative religious groups have claimed that homosexuals pose a substantially greater risk of committing sexual abuse against children than heterosexuals, and have issued papers citing a number of scientific studies to support these claims. However, when one examines the studies cited in these papers, one finds that the religious right has engaged in some serious distortion of the works of others. The scientists who authored the studies made no such claim about homosexuals posing a greater threat to children, and in fact in many cases argued the opposite.
In other Foley news (All Foley, All the Time, Until Nov. 7), yes, it really is completely about politics and manipulating the electorate in the most cynical fashion.
And the Democrats have known about the emails for months, waiting, waiting, waiting for October.
More.
Via Gay Patriot: Screenwriter Nora Ephron gets it right. She told the Huffington Post:
And yet when I watch the liberal punsters on television, I can't help suspecting that they're taking advantage of the homophobia in the culture in order to make slightly more of this episode than it may in fact turn out to be worth. When I watch the Democratic politicians smack their lips, I can't help wondering whether they've forgotten that this is the sort of scandal that can happen to either party, and there's no evidence that Democrats would have handled it any better. In short, I can't help thinking that the homophobia is catching.
More Democrats are running ads claiming GOP leaders allowed Foley to "molest boys," while social conservatives are making their gay=pedophile claim all over the blogosphere.
Via Right Side of the Rainbow: "The media are trying to sex up another gay Republican, this time with nothing but cheap innuendo." How low can they go? Pretty damn low.
25 Comments for “Shady Characters.”
posted by Randy on
And who do they think the lesbians prey upon — young women who hang around the lumber yards?
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
It appears that once again, the old parties are attempting to boil the debate down into two simplistic (and wrong) arguments:
Republicrats: If you attack Foley, it’s because you’re a homophobe. . . and anyway, we all know gays rape kids.
Demopublicans: If you don’t attack Foley, you’re a hypocrite. . . and besides we all know that our attacks aren’t the same as the Religious Right attacks!
What about the silent majority who understand that Foley’s actions aren’t a result of homosexuality, but rather the corrupt Washington culture which regularly protects power-brokers from the consequences of their own actions — all while dishing out heaping dishes of judgment to the common American?
posted by Bobby on
Ann Coulter’s column nails it, here’s a quote.
“At least liberals are finally exhibiting a moral compass about something. I am sure that they’d be equally outraged if Rep. Mark Foley were a Democrat.
The object lesson of Foley’s inappropriate e-mails to male pages is that when a Republican congressman is caught in a sex scandal, he immediately resigns and crawls off into a hole in abject embarrassment. Democrats get snippy.
Foley didn’t claim he was the victim of a “witch-hunt.” He didn’t whine that he was a put-upon “gay American.” He didn’t stay in Congress and haughtily rebuke his critics. He didn’t run for re-election. He certainly didn’t claim he was “saving the Constitution.”
In 1983, Democratic congressman Gerry Studds was found to have sexually propositioned House pages and actually buggered a 17-year-old male page whom he took on a trip to Portugal. The 46-year-old Studds indignantly attacked those who criticized him for what he called a “mutually voluntary, private relationship between adults.”
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi
posted by Audrey on
Rule of thumb Bobby, never take anything Ann Coulter says seriously if you yourself want to be taken seriously.
posted by jomicur on
Ann Coulter couldn’t nail a sheet of paper to her floor. And if she did, she’d lie and claim it was the celing.
When Gerry Studds’ behavior (which was unethical but WAS with a consenting adult, after all) came to light, he was censured. The Democratic leadership and the rank-and-file participated in that censure (all but three members of the House voted in support of censure). They did not attempt to claim they never knew, did not try to make excuses for him (“naughty emails” indeed, “the pages are beasts” indeed), and certainly did not spend weeks pointing fingers at each other in lame attempts to pass the buck. I guess that fact slipped Coulter’s what-passes-for mind. But even if she bothered to check, she’d find some way to shift the blame to Bill Clinton, or Jimmy Carter, or FDR, or…umm…Samuel Tilden! That’s it! Samuel Tilden was a democrat, so it’s all his fault!
posted by raj on
Via Gay Patriot: Screenwriter Nora Ephron’s gets it right.
I find it amusing that right wingnuts take pleasure in lambasting “Hollywood”–except, of course, when they agree with it.
Ephron’s only claim to fame is being a scribbler.
posted by Bobby on
Is a 17 year old an adult? I think 18 is the age of legal adulthood.
posted by Thomas Horsville on
“The 46-year-old Studds indignantly attacked those who criticized him for what he called a ‘mutually voluntary, private relationship between adults.'”
And it was pretty convincing since his former page -the alleged victim- was at his side.
posted by raj on
Thomas Horsville | October 11, 2006, 4:21pm |
And it was pretty convincing since his former page -the alleged victim- was at his side.
That was even more convincing in that both of them said that what happened between them was nobody\\’s business but their own.
posted by Bobby on
Who cares what the page thought? He’s a minor, we don’t expect him to be responsible.
What about that blonde female teacher who slept with those boys? Are we supposed to excuse her now because the boys wanted to sleep with her?
Come on, people, don’t defend the indifensible.
posted by Thomas Horsville on
“What about that blonde female teacher who slept with those boys?”
Had they reached the age of consent? The page had.
“He’s a minor, we don’t expect him to be responsible.”
Even when the minor commits a crime?
posted by raj on
Thomas Horsville | October 12, 2006, 5:02am |
Thomas, Bobby is almost impossible to deal with. Apparently he is to ignorant or uninformed to know that the former page was 26 years old when he stood with Gerry Studds and said that what they had done ten years earlier was nobody’s business but their own. In my book, 26 is not a minor, no matter how anyone looks at it.
posted by jomicur on
Bobby, darling, the age of sexual consent in DC is 16. Once, just once, couldn’t you do some fact-checking before you post here? You might find it a novel, rewarding experience.
posted by ETJB on
Yes, the state age of consent may be 16 in D.C. However, if the boy was receiving the messages in a state where the age of consente was 18 then some legal questions arise.
Beyond that, it is almost always seen as sexual harassment when an employee engages in or express any desire to engage in a relationship with an employee, irrespective of sex.
The boy or his family would, I suspect, have a good cause of action for a civil suit on sexual harassmente, although I would have to read the law on it.
Then we have the federal laws against sending sexual explict material/language to a minor. It is possible these laws set the age of consent at 18 and thuse would supercede state laws in specific circumstances.
Then we have to look beyond just the state age of consent laws, but various other laws that may effectively raise the age of consent in certain circumstances, i.e. if the older person is in a position of trust or authority over the minor.
I really do not see why we should defend the Congressman, other to note that this is not a ‘gay’ thing or a ‘straight’ thing.
I would have had slightly more respect for the man if he either (a) admitted what he had done, said its none of your damnbusiness and read for relection or (b) resigned and did not try and say that he is drunk and abused so its ok.
posted by jomicur on
ETJB, Foley did not start emailing the pages till after they were out of the program. Therefore, sexual harassment is not an issue. No prosecutor in his/her right mind would press that charge against Foley.
Moreover, the fact that the page was of age in DC renders a lot of the other laws that may be applicable beside the point. Can you imagine a prosecutor trying to convince a jury that even though it would have been perfectly legal for Foley to have sex with the kid, he should go to jail for talking about sex with him online? The lamest defense lawyer in the country could beat that one.
Not even Foley’s reported attempt to get into the kids’ dorm is likely to land him behind bars, the more so since he didn’t actually get in.
Trying to get the facts straight hardly constitutes a defense of Foley. I haven’t seen one writer here defend what he did–far from it. But surely getting the facts right is a good idea, no?
posted by ETJB on
“ETJB, Foley did not start emailing the pages till after they were out of the program.”
I am well aware of that point.
“Sexual harassment is not an issue.”
Perhaps not in the workplace perse but the page likely felt as if he was being sexually harassed.
“Moreover, the fact that the page was of age in DC…”
But was he and the Congressmen both in D.C. when the Congressman sent the IM to him? What about the federal laws that the Congressman helped put into law?
I get the impression that some gay Republicans are trying to defend what he did, perhaps that does not apply to anyone here.
posted by Bobby on
Raj, what a 26 year old says about something that happen when he was 16 (10 years ago) doesn’t excuse it.
16 IS a minor.
So if you where molested at 13, does it matter if 10 years later you said you had fun?
Gerry Studds had no right to molest that 16 year old, no matter what the page wanted.
Of course, I don’t expect a moral relativist like you to understand that.
posted by Thomas Horsville on
“The page likely felt as if he was being sexually harassed.”
Really? It certainly doesn’t appear that way when you look at the instant message exchanges. In any case, he could have ended the conversation with just one click.
“Gerry Studds had no right to molest that 16 year old, no matter what the page wanted.”
If the boy had reached the age of consent at the time, no molestation occured. The fact that, ten years later, Gerry Studd’s alleged victim sided with him, unambiguously telling the censors to mind their own business, just make the diatribes of nosy people like you more ridiculous.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
I don’t know what’s funnier — the “moral majority’s” defense of their chicken-hawk gay candidate, or the gay left’s fervent defense of a Republican closet-case sexual predator.
posted by ETJB on
Bobby; if the “controlling” age of consent is 16 then no molestation is occured because that state or district has decreed — in its less then perfect widsom — that that is the age when a person is able to make such choices on his or her own.
It is hard to just “end” a conversation with some one that is or was your boss.
I am hardly a ‘censor’ and I am not engaging in some wortheles or puritancial ‘diatribe’. Their are real legal and moral issues that such a relationship or an attempt to have such a relationship (irrespective of sex or sexual orientation) bring up.
posted by ETJB on
Bobby; if the “controlling” age of consent is 16 then no molestation is occured because that state or district has decreed — in its less then perfect widsom — that that is the age when a person is able to make such choices on his or her own.
It is hard to just “end” a conversation with some one that is or was your boss.
I am hardly a ‘censor’ and I am not engaging in some wortheles or puritancial ‘diatribe’. Their are real legal and moral issues that such a relationship or an attempt to have such a relationship (irrespective of sex or sexual orientation) bring up.
posted by Bobby on
Look ETJB, just because there’s a loophole in the law doesn’t mean it’s acceptable. If a congressman went to Amsterdam, smoked some weed, and congress found out about it, he could be censured, maybe expelled.
In the real world outside congress, people get fired for much less.
Also, if you accept the age of consent at 16, some pervert is gonna want it lower to 15, 14, 13, 12 and so on. I don’t want to make it easier for the perverts of the world.
posted by Thomas Horsville on
“If you accept the age of consent at 16, some pervert is gonna want it lower to 15, 14, 13, 12 and so on.”
You don’t have to accept anything: in Washington D.C. the age of consent is 16, not 15, not 17, 16. That’s just the way it is. Of course, you may consider this age limit is not appropriate, and even try to have it changed, but in the meantime it’s the only one relevant.
posted by ETJB on
Bobby;
I do not consider the age of consent to be a “loophole.” The law is the law and I generally feel it should be enforced, amendmed or repealed but not ignored.
Yes, some pervert may advocate lowering the age of consent in DC just as you can advocate raising the age of consent in DC. It is called Freedom of Speech. However, we do not have to treat all ideas as equal and can use our equal freedom of speech to crticize ideas that we dislike, loath or find offensive.
If 16 is the controlling age of consent, then it is unlikely he can be charged with attempting to seduce a minor. Every state has their own age of consent laws. I think its something like 18 in Minneotat and North Dakota, but I could be wrong.
I really do not see why in the world you would not only cheat on your boyfriend but try and do it with some one that is not old enough to vote for you.
In MN we have laws against having or trying to have a relationship with some one that you are in a position of authority or special trust over, i.e. preacher, counselor, teacher, etc. This is why the relations, to me, is very offensive and ugly even if it was only attempted. I do not really have a problem with the sex or the sexual orientation or the people involved.
Now, such laws may not apply in DC, and thus all I can do is express some degree of moral outrage. He is not in my state, he is no longer a Congressman, I hope his boyfriend gives him hell, and I can not respect the entire “Dude, I was really drunk” excuse because I heard that once too many times as a college student.
Look ETJB, just because there’s a loophole in the law doesn’t mean it’s acceptable. If a congressman went to Amsterdam, smoked some weed, and congress found out about it, he could be censured, maybe expelled.
In the real world outside congress, people get fired for much less.
Also, if you accept the age of consent at 16, some pervert is gonna want it lower to 15, 14, 13, 12 and so on. I don’t want to make it easier for the perverts of the world.
posted by ETJB on
Bobby;
In the ‘real world’ some one could be fired from their job for just about any reason as most employment is ‘at-will.’
If he attempted to have a relationship with his male or female pages then that could be sexual harassment, irrespective of age.
Yet, if he gets nailed on criminal charges I doubt that it will be because of the DC age of consent issue (if the age of consent is 16).
If he faces charges and goes to court, mostly likely it will be some type of federal child protection act issue.
I keep thinking that their must be some legal issue at hand, because the ‘i was drunk’ excuse is almost a textbook attempt to try and eliminate “mens rea” or intent in criminal matters.
If he had not quit his job, I could see the ‘I was drunk’ excuse as a p.r. attempt for the public. But since he is never going to face an election again, I cant but help thing that their is something criminal looming in the future.
The man has given up his political career, will be loated by Repubicans for helping Democrats win in Nov, and cheated on his boyfriend.