According to the Raw Story website, former House speaker Dennis Hastert “would be only the latest conservative Christian political figure to be revealed as engaging in a homosexual lifestyle he demonized as a lawmaker.”
I think “engaging in a homosexual lifestyle” may be overstated based on what we know (unattributed allegations of improper sexual misconduct with a student wrestler). Still, the sad litany of socially conservative, gay-marriage opposing GOP (mostly) politicians who have sex with men (or boys) continues.
We don’t know what percentage of men who tell survey takers they’re straight because they’re married to a woman and have children are secretly men who have sex with men. But in the better world to come—with legal equality, same-sex marriage commonplace, and social acceptance the cultural norm—hopefully so many lives won’t be tragically distorted.
More. Right-wing screeds against gay scoutmasters miss the point that it’s the closet cases (often married to women, with kids) who are the danger. The openly gay scoutmaster—or wrestling coach—with a husband is much less likely to abuse teenage boys.
Furthermore. At the Volokh Conspiracy, Orin Kerr blogs:
If I understand the history correctly, in the late 1990s, the President was impeached for lying about a sexual affair by a House of Representatives led by a man who was also then hiding a sexual affair, who was supposed to be replaced by another Congressman who stepped down when forced to reveal that he too was having a sexual affair, which led to the election of a new Speaker of the House who now has been indicted for lying about payments covering up his sexual contact with a boy.
32 Comments for “Secret Lives”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I think “engaging in a homosexual lifestyle” may be overstated based on what we know (unattributed allegations of improper sexual misconduct with a student wrestler).
With the obvious caution that allegations unproven in court or by admission are allegations and not facts, reputable newspapers are reporting that the payoff relates to sexual molestation of a high school student during the time when Speaker Hassert was teaching at Yorkville High School:
Sexual abuse of minors is not a part of “the homosexual lifestyle” any more than sexual abuse of minors is a part of “the heterosexual lifestyle” or “the Christian lifestyle” or any other “lifestyle” that includes sexual conduct between consenting adults. Sexual abuse of minors is sexual abuse of minors, a crime and a pathology.
Having noted that, I agree with the thesis that the closet distorts.
An old adage — “You are only as sick as your secrets.” — is a wise adage. You and I, Stephen, and no doubt others on IGF, are old enough to know how the closet distorted the lives of many thousands of gay men, and all of us who live in rural/conservative areas of the country know the ways in which the closet distorts the lives of gay men today.
I hope, as you do, that “[I]n the better world to come—with legal equality, same-sex marriage commonplace, and social acceptance the cultural norm—hopefully so many lives won’t be tragically distorted. ” It is our job to work toward “the better world to come”, and to stand up to those who work, consciously or unconsciously, to prevent it from coming.
posted by tom Jefferson 3rd on
Even if the high school student was of legal age (unsure of the State law at the time), many additional reasons exist (power dynamics, favoritism) why we don’t want teachers sleeping with their students.
Duggar and family seem to justify (based on media reports) his actions by saying something like “I was a teenager and gosh, darn it, I did a bad thing with my younger sister.” I hate to be a kid in that family.
posted by Jorge on
Duggar and family seem to justify (based on media reports) his actions by saying something like “I was a teenager and gosh, darn it, I did a bad thing with my younger sister.”
They did no such thing.
First of all, Josh Duggar characterized the severity of his transgression as about as severely as you can imagine.
Second, he characterized the intensity of his parents’ response as very intense indeed, on repeated occasions. Whether that’s because his parents didn’t choose the right response the first time or because Josh himself was resistant to rehabilitation is something I have an opinion on but isn’t really proven.
Juvenile perps of child sex abuse are not (always) the same as adult perps. Sex offender treatment is much more likely to be successful with the former. That does not mean it’s easy! That does not mean the victims don’t need treatment.
Mr. Duggar would have us believe that he’s a juvenile child sex offender, and that his parents, law enforcement, the church, and the therapeutic did several attempts at intervention, several unsuccessful, one successful, and that as a result of successful intervention and therapy, his family has healed to the point that it is functional.
I believe it.
I also wouldn’t trust my kids with him if I had any.
posted by Houndentenor on
The parents did not handle this appropriately, but in a way that is typical of certain insular religious groups. They kept everything inside their religious circle. That too often leads to disasters in which the cover-up only allows the offender to continue. If Josh Duggar never did this again, then everyone involved is very lucky. That’s not always how that plays out.
posted by Jorge on
The parents did not handle this appropriately
You obviously know more about this story than I do. Either that or you’re making a leap of logic that is more emotional than sensible. I do not have enough information to conclude that they did not act appropriately, and so I won’t.
posted by Jorge on
I have no idea why you’re talking about a cover-up, either. Care to share?
posted by Houndentenor on
It would appear that I do know more about the story than you do, which I don’t understand since I only know what is easily available from standard media sources.
posted by Mike in Houston on
Since some folks haven’t read up on this (Jorge)…
Josh was caught coming out of one of the girls’ bedrooms by the dad. He confessed to bad behavior and Dad (after prayer) left it at that. It wasn’t until it happened again and again that the family “took action”… Namely to bring the single incident to the attention of at a state trooper who was a family friend (and later convicted child porn purveyor). Said trooper provided a stern lecture and closed the case. The “counseling” was provided by another family friend (who later resigned from that counseling. Enter due to sexual harassment allegations). No actual counseling actually occurred (confirmed by Mom) but Josh did have to do remodeling work that summer for free.
The report to AK law enforcement didn’t happen for more than a year after the second discovered incident…and the the fame refused to let Josh Duggar be interviewed by Child Protective Services (he actually sued them to prevent it).
The ‘counseling center’ guidelines for treatment btw include asking the victim to examine their behavior to see if they didn’t do anything ‘provocative’ and to ‘see it as a badge of honor from God’ to forgive the perp because it’s part of God’s Plan to strengthen their character.
So, no, this isn’t just an example of youthful exploration/indiscretion.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I don’t want to get involved in the Duggar discussion, but for those interested, the Washington Post published a timeline of events about a week ago. Further details have emerged since then, but the timeline is a good starting point.
posted by Houndentenor on
Note: AK = Alaska. The abbreviation for Arkansas is AR.
posted by Jorge on
…that’s it (with respect the parents’ handling of the case).
This is a whole bunch of so what. How do you guys think the parents should have handled the situation?
Because from where I sit, I think they think a halfway decent job of treating it seriously. Maybe not correctly, but it’s plain to me that they took the matter seriously and sought both treatment and intervention.
posted by Jorge on
I think they *did* a halfway decent job of treating it seriously.
posted by Jorge on
One more thing.
As a parent, I wouldn’t see the worth of having a child interviewed by child protective services when the police have already determined whether or not to interview him. Which from what I understand, they must have either interviewed him or refused to interview him because they determined ultimately determined they would not prosecute.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Josh Duggar characterized the severity of his transgression as about as severely as you can imagine.
Just for the record, this is the statement issued by Josh Diggar:
As far as I know, this is the only public statement he has made to date. It speaks for itself.
posted by Jorge on
Which is why I don’t understand why you’re implying you disagree with me.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Which is why I don’t understand why you’re implying you disagree with me.
As I said, Jorge, I don’t want to get involved in the Josh Duggar discussion.
The discussion belongs on Entertainment Tonight and in the tabloids, right alongside the royal family drama of the Evil Camilla and the Kate the Good, with a side dish of the Bebes’s misadventures. In a word, the Duggars are not serious people and do not warrant serious attention.
The Duggars are entertainers, making their living off a “reality” show selling an image of dysfunctional family as carefully crafted uber-Christian fantasy, the modern equivalent of The Nelsons but much less palatable.
If there is fault to be laid, it is on the parents, who have been holding themselves out as moral exemplars while exploiting their children for personal gain.
I know several families who are conservative Christians, who home school, do not use birth control and so on, part of the conservative Christian movement to raise their children counter-culturally, without the cultish distortions of Gothard/ATI. The difference between these families, focused on their children rather than on themselves, doing their best to raise their children counter-culturally according to their own religious lights (as I did with my own children for different reasons) and the Duggars is, well, vast.
If posting Josh Duggar’s statement (with a link to the Facebook statements of the parents and his wife) carries an implication that I disagree with you, so be it. The Duggars’ statements speak for themselves, and you and others can argue until the cows come home about it.
posted by Jorge on
If you don’t want to get involved with the Josh Duggar discussion, Tom then don’t get involved in the Josh Duggar discussion. But if you do have something to say, and then the next minute you want to pretend like you have nothing to say, then I shall argue with *you* until the cows come home and hold you accountable for your hit-and-run tactics which I frankly think are a little snide. I don’t treat you like you’re on a high horse on any other issue, and I won’t treat you like you’re on one here. I shall take it upon myself to take what you have started and finish it, on my own terms, at my own time, and you shall have no say in the matter. Just as I have no say in many things that you have a voice in.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I shall take it upon myself to take what you have started and finish it, on my own terms, at my own time, and you shall have no say in the matter.
True enough. I’ve not commented on Josh Duggar, and I don’t intend to do so. So have fun.
posted by Mike in Houston on
Gives life to the old adage about GOP politics — better to be found in bed with a dead hooker than a live man.
There’s an emerging meme (or maybe it’s just more visible in the internet age), anti-gay folks and politicians turn out to have rather sordid pasts:
Sen. Craig (wide stance)
NARTH Founder George Rekers (lift my luggage rentboy)
Josh Duggar (child molester)
Reverend Matthew Makela (Grindr)
NY T-Party Leader Joseph Hayon (child porn)
And the list goes on and on…
posted by tom Jefferson 3rd on
And another thing….
My only possible complaint against the former Congressman’s victim(s) is that they didn’t come forward.
I realize that support for victims of rape or sexual abuse in America is often underfunded/flawed, and can get even worse when the victims are not women or girls.
However, if the media reports are to be believed, then the victim(s) choose to accept a huge payoff in exchange for letting the Congressman off the hook.
posted by Houndentenor on
Do we know enough about the victim, his circumstances and what arrangement was made between him and Hastert to assume that?
posted by Houndentenor on
There were rumors about this dating back to Hastert’s time as Speaker. I didn’t put much stock in them. Famous people always have rumors around them and often they are either made up, misattributed, or grossly distorted. But this, as it turns out, is exactly what he was rumored to have done. So obviously people had heard about this 10 years ago or more. How could he not know that you can deposit or withdraw that much cash without raising red flags. (Such cash deposits are almost always for some sort of illegal activity or another, after all.)
And of course the right is all over this with accusations, but as Stephen rightly points out, an openly gay adult scouting volunteer is going to be especially careful not to be in any situation that would arouse suspicion.
Meanwhile, it’s been a bad week for right wing hypocrites. It’s just too bad no one blew the whistle earlier because in most cases they could have prevented the later victims from being harmed. The cover-ups and messenger-blaming and victim shaming are part of the pathology that allows sexual (and other forms of) abuse to continue. Enough.
posted by Lori Heine on
Personally, I would be much more inclined to trust an openly gay man (or woman) with my children than I would a straight adult I didn’t know very well. We are accustomed to observing proprieties and keeping our behavior above-board. I always feel like straight people are going to watch me more closely than they would if I were straight–whether that’s true or not. So I am a little more careful how I behave around those I don’t know well.
Another reason of many why I find the company of other LGBT folks more relaxing.
posted by tom Jefferson 3rd on
I got to wonder how this particular cover-up was so successful for so long. It is unlikely that any criminal charges will be brought against the former Congressman and it does not appear as if the victim or victims planned a civil action (apparently, silence does have a price)
Duggar. The reality T.V. star – I have never liked 99% of reality T.V. – is also not going to face criminal charges (sounds like a friend of the family helped with that cover-up).
He lost his current job, both I suspect he will have a soft landing into another lucrative gig some time in the not-too-distant future.
posted by Jorge on
We don’t know what percentage of men who tell survey takers they’re straight because they’re married to a woman and have children are secretly men who have sex with men.
Double the difference between the percentage of self-identified GLB white and GLB black men, and hope you’re not too far off.
Sexual abuse of minors is not a part of “the homosexual lifestyle” any more than sexual abuse of minors is a part of “the heterosexual lifestyle” or “the Christian lifestyle” or any other “lifestyle” that includes sexual conduct between consenting adults. Sexual abuse of minors is sexual abuse of minors, a crime and a pathology.
We have established in cases of molestation and sexual abuse of post-pubescent minors, the sex of the perpetrator and victim have nothing to do with sexual orientation?
(I know we’ve established that about sexual abuse of pre-pubescent minors.)
Is that question relevant? No it is not. There is more than enough sexual abuse that crosses genders to go around.
posted by Jorge on
Um, self-identify gay and bisexual men. Right.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
We have established in cases of molestation and sexual abuse of post-pubescent minors, the sex of the perpetrator and victim have nothing to do with sexual orientation? … Is that question relevant? No it is not.
Exactly. Adults — straight, gay/lesbian or whatever — have a responsibility to protect minors from sexual molestation, not molest them. In the case of coaches, teachers, pastors and others placed in positions of trust, that responsibility is a core responsibility. Teachers go to jail for sexually abusing students, and that’s appropriate.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
It looks like — two former students have told federal investigators that Hastert did something inappropriate to them — when he was their teacher/coach. One of the victims may have been (years later) paid off by Hastert to keep silent.
This would probably qualify as illegal blackmail, although I suspect criminal immunity would be given in exchange for testimony (if it gets to that point). Will their be more former students coming forward with similar allegations?
The “reality TV” star (I have disliked 99% of all reality TV even before this story broke) is accused of abusing several of his his sisters (while he was a teenager) and his parents could be accused of a staging a cover-up (with a member of law enforcement currently in prison)
As horrible as the accusations are, am I the only one who finds the coverup more terrifying then the crimes? Something clearly went wrong with the system setup for criminal justice and helping victims.
In both situations we have the allegations themselves as well as elaborate and — initially — quite successful coverup.
Exactly. Adults — straight, gay/lesbian or whatever — have a responsibility to protect minors from sexual molestation, not molest them. In the case of coaches, teachers, pastors and others placed in positions of trust, that responsibility is a core responsibility. Teachers go to jail for sexually abusing students, and that’s appropriate.
posted by Lori Heine on
“In a word, the Duggars are not serious people and do not warrant serious attention.”
Exactly. The post was about former Speaker Hastert. How did this thread manage to degenerate into speculations about the Duggars?
I am mildly interested in the Hastert situation because he used to be one of the most powerful men in this country. He made decisions that affected our lives. He held a position of great public trust and authority.
What, exactly, have the Duggars done that makes them worth the time of day?
posted by tom Jefferson 3rd on
Victims of abuse or rape are entitled to justice, even if they are reality T.V. celebrities or no one remotely famous. That is my concern with regards to the Duggars. I have never watched their series, have zero
posted by tom Jefferson 3rd on
Victims of abuse or rape are entitled to justice, even if they are reality T.V. celebrities or no one remotely famous. People also shouldn’t be able to escape the law because they got money or a friend on the force. That is my concern with regards to the Duggars. I have never watched their series, have zero interest in reality T.V. as a genre. It is not a genre that I like or admire.
Yes, a powerful politician is certainly in a position to do more harm. His (alledged) crime and cover up and possibly blackmail scheme is more newsworthy then the alleged crime and cover up involving a reality T.V. star and his ties to the family research council.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
The Duggar family should be largely kept within the realm of Entertainment news and commentary. Alas, much of the mainstream media has jumped on board to the ‘infotainment’ 24/7 news cycle.
IMHO the Duggar parents handled the sexual abuse with far more concern for the “cash cow” — i.e. the reality television series marketed to conservative Christians — then for their son or his victims.
To avoid bad publicity and to ensure that their son’s “mistakes” did hurt his career goals, the parents enlisted the aid of a family friend in law enforcement (who would go down for child porn), a counselor (who would go down for sexual harassment charges) and well paid lawyers to make sure that no one in the family spoke with anyone in child protective services.
I been on record as disliking about 99% of all all reality television program, but up until now I generally thought it was — to borrow a line from a great author — “mostly harmless”.
Well, if reality TV stars believe that they (or their kids) are somehow above the law, and put their children’s safety far behind living like royalty, I would have to say that reality T.V. has the potentially to be “mostly harmful”.