Come Back Ted Haggard, Come Back

Olivia With the Loop 3


Two days ago I wrote about the persistence of prejudice against gays. Today I’m writing about a corollary: the persistence of preference for handsome young men (at least) among the Right Wing and Evangelicals. In this case, things appear to have graduated from an anonymous Minneapolis airport men’s room encounter (Larry Craig), or gay prostitute-user evangelical preacher Ted Haggard (“I have not, I have never had a gay relationship with anybody”), to a 10-day pleasure trip taken with an “assistant” hired to carry the primary’s baggage. The primary? Christian right leader George Rekers, a man who has done as much as any other in a prominent position to bash gays and to suppress gay rights.

According to Miami NewTimes News it appears he engaged a young man for a ten-day trip to Europe:

The pictures on the Rentboy.com profile show a shirtless young man with delicate features, guileless eyes, and sun-kissed, hairless skin. The profile touts his “smooth, sweet, tight ass” and “perfectly built 8 inch cock (uncut)” and explains he is “sensual,” “wild,” and “up for anything” — as long you ask first. And as long as you pay.

….

Both men deny having sex on the trip, and emails exchanged between the two before their jaunt are cautiously worded.

“I’d like to propose another trip to Rome, Italy, for a week or more,” Rekers wrote in an email dated March 21 obtained by New Times. “This is so exciting to have a nice Travel Assistant and traveling companion! Wow! I’m so glad I met you.”

“I called and talked to the reservation guy in London and reserved a room with two twin beds,” Rekers wrote on March 26.

Another trip to Rome”?

OK. There’s no evidence of homosexuality here (Craig’s and Haggard’s activities were rather more blatant). Yet we must remember the saying, “where there’s heat, there’s fire.”

So what is it with religious right leaders and other prominent gay bashers? Do they suppress gays’ rights as compensation for suppressing their own gay tendencies? Do they go out of the country (or go to men’s room stalls) because they know they’d be recognized and outed if they acted in public? Is their verbal violence toward gays, gay rights, gay marriage and gay adoption (Rekers’s special passion) an outgrowth of their internal frustration from having homosexual tendencies they are unable to openly acknowledge and exercise?

As The Huffington Post says: “The irony of this entire thing is despite the gay community’s supposed sophistication in fighting the lies of the religious right, the old belief that those who preach the most fervent against homosexuality are really gay themselves may be the case here.”

I’m no psychiatrist (that’s obvious), so I frankly don’t understand the workings of the human psyche in this kind of situation. Everyone’s wisdom will be welcome as comments.

See “gaydar.”

(This story became prominent on various gay-rights and gay-support blogs and media yesterday afternoon. It was mentioned in a few mainstream media yesterday evening.)

————————

No Surprise Department

Reports that some legislators in Oklahoma want to join Arizona on the rest of the country’s list of places to be boycotted. They’d go further and add asset forfeiture. Oh, well: there’s even less to see in Oklahoma than there is in Arizona.

————————

For the Photographers Department

A very interesting article on colors and their perception. Thought for the day: RGB is a relative colorspace. Which is why, if you photograph in raw and use Prophoto RGB, keep your images in 16-bit bitspace. Read up on it and you’ll understand why.

————————

Police at Work Department

There are undoubtedly two sides to this story of a drug raid netting a minor quantity of marijuana, but it is — to me — disturbing at a minimum. The author, Radley Balko, is a prominent libertarian and campaigner against what he calls “police militarization.” But judge for yourself, and (with caution, because it is truly upsetting) watch the video. (Note that the video was apparently made by the police themselves.)

Is there a better argument for legalization of pot?

(SLH Note a/o 12:15 p.m., 5/5: Updates with more information, including apparently somewhat the version of events from the police’s standpoint, will be found in “Family questions SWAT drug search that led to dog’s death” (contemporaneous with the original raid and arrest) and “Drug raid inquiry is ongoing” (in the Columbia Daily Tribune two days ago). None of this adequately answers the question I still have: “Why?”)

————————

Olivia is the picture of Greek ideal physical perfection.

This entry was posted in Civil Liberties, Hypocrisy, Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to Come Back Ted Haggard, Come Back

  1. I am a bit confused ref the police video. They announce they have a search warrant but obviously are there for an arrest and not a search. I see nothing in the video that indicates any measures taken to act upon a search warrant. Also, there is no mention of what the search warrant was for (suspicious), which I would like to know before judgment was passed on either party. Can't see the dog so we have no idea if attacked the officer.I would be willing to bet there was more involved in this than the author is willing to let us in on. You don't enter a home with many armed to the teeth tactical officers for a pot bust.More facts need to come to light before this means much to me.

  2. I don't necessarily disagree. That's why I posted the link saying, "There are undoubtedly two sides to this story …."But I will say that if, as Balko asserts, raids like this are commonplace, I say again, one solution is to remove the justification for the raid and legalize and regulate pot.I like your point about the announced purpose of the raid being a "search warrant" which seems to be the pretext for a violent entry and arrest.

  3. Off topic, but a question. Someone said today the War on Photography is abating in England with London police apologizing for their behavior. Is this true?

  4. Dr. L: Lin reports that matters have calmed, but mostly because of the British elections — the authorities don't want to call attention to the continuing repression of civil rights, of which the war on photography is but a part. I suspect that if Labour prevails or the Tories get in, it will be back to business as usual.

  5. I learned long ago that if you want to know what any preacher's biggest temptation is you pay attention to the thing he harps on the most. He's always most aware of the thing that draws him. Because of that it is common for them to be caught doing whatever it is that they have railed most strongly against. Of course, you only learn that if they get caught. That's why so many seem to be (are) hypocrites.

  6. Thank you for the enlightenment, Stephen. The elections will be something to watch then!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

*


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>