By GEOFF MULVIHILL, Associated Press Writer
New Jersey's highest court opened the door Wednesday to making the state the second in the nation to allow gay marriage, ruling that lawmakers must offer same-sex couples either marriage or something like it, such as civil unions.
In a ruling that fell short of what either side wanted or most feared, the state Supreme Court declared 4-3 that gay couples are entitled to the same rights as heterosexual ones. The justices gave lawmakers 180 days to rewrite the laws.
The ruling is similar to the 1999 high-court ruling in Vermont that led the state to create civil unions, which confer all of the rights and benefits available to married couples under state law.
"Although we cannot find that a fundamental right to same-sex marriage exists in this state, the unequal dispensation of rights and benefits to committed same-sex partners can no longer be tolerated under our state Constitution," Justice Barry T. Albin wrote for the four-member majority.
The court said the Legislature "must either amend the marriage statutes to include same-sex couples or create a parallel statutory structure" that gives gays all the privileges and obligations married couples have.
The three dissenters argued that the majority did not go far enough. They demanded full marriage for gays.
Gay rights activists had seen New Jersey as a promising place because it is a largely Democratic state in the Northeast. The only state to allow gay marriage is Massachusetts. The only states allowing civil unions are Vermont and Connecticut. New Jersey is also one of just five states that have no law or constitutional amendment expressly banning gay marriage.
If the court had legalized gay marriage outright, the effect could have been more far-reaching, and New Jersey could have become more of a magnet for gay couples than Massachusetts, which has a law barring out-of-state couples from marrying there if their marriages would not be recognized in their home states. New Jersey has no such law.
A clear-cut ruling legalizing gay marriage this close to Election Day could also have been a political bombshell, galvanizing Republicans and the religious right. Eight states have gay marriage bans on their ballots in November.
New Jersey Republicans, who are in the minority in the Legislature, said they would work to ban same-sex unions by enacting a constitutional amendment.
For gay rights advocates, there was debate over whether the ruling was a victory.
Lara Schwartz, legal director of Human Rights Campaign, said if legislators have to choose between civil unions and marriage, it is a no-lose situation for gay couples. "They get to decide whether it's chocolate or double-chocolate chip," Schwartz said.
Steven Goldstein, executive director of Garden State Equality, New Jersey's main gay rights group, said his organization wants nothing short of marriage. "We get to go from the back of the bus to the middle of the bus," he complained.
The New Jersey high court castigated the treatment same-sex couples receive under the law.
"The seeming ordinariness of plaintiffs' lives is belied by the social indignities and economic difficulties that they daily face due to the inferior legal standing of their relationships compared to that of married couples," the court said.
Outside the court, news of the ruling caused confusion, with many of the roughly 100 gay marriage supporters outside asking each other what it meant.
"I'm definitely encouraged," said Chris Lodewyks, one of the plaintiffs who gathered at a Newark law office. But he added, "I'm not sure what this exactly means in terms of marriage."
Another plaintiff, Saundra Toby-Heath, was more effusive: "I feel they were listening and paying attention to us as human beings who wanted to have the same rights."
Garden State Equality, New Jersey's main gay political organization, quickly announced that three lawmakers would introduce a bill in the Legislature to give full marriage rights to gay couples.
"New Jersey is a progressive state and has a tradition of tolerance," said one of the lawmakers, Democratic Assemblyman Reed Gusciora.
GOP Assemblyman Richard Merkt said he would seek to have all seven justices impeached. "Neither the framers of New Jersey's 1947 constitution, nor the voters who ratified it, ever remotely contemplated the possibility of same-sex marriage," Merkt said.
Gay couples in New Jersey can already apply for domestic partnerships under a law passed in 2004. Among other things, domestic partnerships give couples the right to inherit possessions if there is no will and health care coverage for partners of state employees.
Democratic Gov. Jon S. Corzine supports domestic partnerships, but not gay marriage.
Former Gov. James E. McGreevey, who resigned in 2004 after announcing that he was gay and had an affair with a male staff member, praised the court's decision. "I applaud the court's courage," McGreevey said. "I regret not having had the fortitude to embrace this right during my tenure as governor."
Supporters pushing for full gay marriage have had a two-year losing streak in state courts, including those in New York, Washington state, and both Nebraska and Georgia, where voter-approved bans on gay marriage were reinstated.
They also have suffered at the ballot boxes in 20 states where constitutions have been amended to ban same-sex unions.
Cases similar to the one ruled on Wednesday, which was filed by seven gay New Jersey couples, are pending in California, Connecticut, Iowa and Maryland.
Associated Press writers Beth DeFalco and Chris Newmarker in Trenton and Jeffrey Gold and David Porter in Newark contributed to this report.
Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press.
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
Monday, October 23, 2006
Gay Marriage at the State Department
By John Brummett
Talk about an underplayed story. I'm afraid you may have missed it. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice legalized gay marriage a couple of weeks ago.
What happened was that Rice formally announced the appointment of Mark Dybul as the nation's global AIDS ambassador. Dybul is a homosexual man. He was accompanied to the announcement by his homosexual male partner, Jason Claire, who held the Bible for his swearing-in.
Some of you are thoroughly offended already, I'm sure, at the very idea of a gay man swearing on the Bible while his same-sex consort holds that Bible.
Stay seated. You haven't heard anything yet.
In her remarks, Condi Rice said, and I quote: "Thank you. Thank you very much. I am truly honored and delighted to have the opportunity to swear in Mark Dybul as our next Global AIDS Coordinator. I am pleased to do that in the presence of Mark's parents, Claire and Richard; his partner, Jason, and his mother-in-law, Marilyn. You have a wonderful family to support you, Mark, and I know that's always important to us. Welcome."
I direct your attention to the reference to "mother-in-law."
Your mother-in-law is the mother of your spouse. So, no less than our secretary of state, fourth in the line of succession to the presidency, our very emissary to the world, essentially declared Dybul's male homosexual partner his spouse.
This wasn't a liberal Democratic judge in San Francisco or Massachusetts. This was an eminent Bush appointee. And she did it right there in Foggy Bottom, a famously public place in southwestern D.C., with Laura Bush standing by in powerfully passive acquiescence.
This was not far at all from George W.'s White House, where Rice is ever-welcome and highly regarded. Laura, too.
Then Condi flew off to the Far East to try to straighten out that nuclear mess.
Talk about mixed emotions. You don't know which to do first. You could rise in praise of Condi's tolerance and enlightenment. Or you could rise to deplore the Bush administration's breathtaking cynicism and hypocrisy.
Bush and the Republicans rail against the menace of gay marriage to drum up votes from Christian conservatives. Then the president's closest foreign policy adviser publicly declares that a gay man's partner's mother is the gay man's mother-in-law. And the president's wife just stands there like a knot on a log.
The cynical exploitation by Republicans of Christian conservatives - and this gulf between what leading Republicans say and do - began sometime between Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.
Goldwater had no religious element in his insufficient conservative base in 1964, and, truth be known, the charmingly irascible libertarian wouldn't have stood for one. He thought religion ought to be over here and government over there. But conservative leaders realized after Goldwater's drubbing that they needed the religious element to compete.
So, they propped up the pliable Reagan at evangelical religious gatherings to sit with a Hollywood-trained smile as bellowers like James Robison spewed venom about how the "perverts" were going to take over the country unless good Christian men like this Ronald Reagan here got elected.
It's been a tale of deceit ever since. A new book by a former White House aide says Karl Rove would pat evangelical leaders on the back, then laugh at them and call them nuts after they left.
Again, you don't know which to do first, applaud Rove's good judgment or deplore his cynicism.
Dick Cheney's family alone - with the vice president's lesbian adult daughter - is a case study of the hollowness of leading Republicans' vile and cynically manipulative public rhetoric and the compassion and tolerance of their real private lives.
John Brummett is an award-winning columnist for the Arkansas News Bureau in Little Rock and author of "High Wire," a book about Bill Clinton's first year as president. His e-mail address is jbrummett@arkansasnews.com
Talk about an underplayed story. I'm afraid you may have missed it. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice legalized gay marriage a couple of weeks ago.
What happened was that Rice formally announced the appointment of Mark Dybul as the nation's global AIDS ambassador. Dybul is a homosexual man. He was accompanied to the announcement by his homosexual male partner, Jason Claire, who held the Bible for his swearing-in.
Some of you are thoroughly offended already, I'm sure, at the very idea of a gay man swearing on the Bible while his same-sex consort holds that Bible.
Stay seated. You haven't heard anything yet.
In her remarks, Condi Rice said, and I quote: "Thank you. Thank you very much. I am truly honored and delighted to have the opportunity to swear in Mark Dybul as our next Global AIDS Coordinator. I am pleased to do that in the presence of Mark's parents, Claire and Richard; his partner, Jason, and his mother-in-law, Marilyn. You have a wonderful family to support you, Mark, and I know that's always important to us. Welcome."
I direct your attention to the reference to "mother-in-law."
Your mother-in-law is the mother of your spouse. So, no less than our secretary of state, fourth in the line of succession to the presidency, our very emissary to the world, essentially declared Dybul's male homosexual partner his spouse.
This wasn't a liberal Democratic judge in San Francisco or Massachusetts. This was an eminent Bush appointee. And she did it right there in Foggy Bottom, a famously public place in southwestern D.C., with Laura Bush standing by in powerfully passive acquiescence.
This was not far at all from George W.'s White House, where Rice is ever-welcome and highly regarded. Laura, too.
Then Condi flew off to the Far East to try to straighten out that nuclear mess.
Talk about mixed emotions. You don't know which to do first. You could rise in praise of Condi's tolerance and enlightenment. Or you could rise to deplore the Bush administration's breathtaking cynicism and hypocrisy.
Bush and the Republicans rail against the menace of gay marriage to drum up votes from Christian conservatives. Then the president's closest foreign policy adviser publicly declares that a gay man's partner's mother is the gay man's mother-in-law. And the president's wife just stands there like a knot on a log.
The cynical exploitation by Republicans of Christian conservatives - and this gulf between what leading Republicans say and do - began sometime between Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.
Goldwater had no religious element in his insufficient conservative base in 1964, and, truth be known, the charmingly irascible libertarian wouldn't have stood for one. He thought religion ought to be over here and government over there. But conservative leaders realized after Goldwater's drubbing that they needed the religious element to compete.
So, they propped up the pliable Reagan at evangelical religious gatherings to sit with a Hollywood-trained smile as bellowers like James Robison spewed venom about how the "perverts" were going to take over the country unless good Christian men like this Ronald Reagan here got elected.
It's been a tale of deceit ever since. A new book by a former White House aide says Karl Rove would pat evangelical leaders on the back, then laugh at them and call them nuts after they left.
Again, you don't know which to do first, applaud Rove's good judgment or deplore his cynicism.
Dick Cheney's family alone - with the vice president's lesbian adult daughter - is a case study of the hollowness of leading Republicans' vile and cynically manipulative public rhetoric and the compassion and tolerance of their real private lives.
John Brummett is an award-winning columnist for the Arkansas News Bureau in Little Rock and author of "High Wire," a book about Bill Clinton's first year as president. His e-mail address is jbrummett@arkansasnews.com
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Suspicion Permeates Guantanamo
ANDREW O. SELSKY
Associated Press Writer
A military officer probing new charges of prisoner abuse here will encounter a pervasive atmosphere of hostility and suspicion between the detainees and U.S. troops who consider themselves at war.
Even on a recent, controlled visit, an Associated Press reporter and photographer found that the prison brims with hatred. Former prisoners say the guards kick and punch them for no reason and treat them as subhuman. Guards say the inmates fling excrement at them, along with racial slurs and death threats.
Guantanamo is under renewed scrutiny after a U.S. Marine working for a detainee's defense team said she heard guards boast about beating detainees and depriving them of personal items without provocation. The guards described the abuse as commonplace, the Marine said in an affidavit, prompting the Pentagon's Inspector General to order an investigation.
In an interview at the base, a guard told the AP journalists a detainee used an ugly racist epithet in an attempt to provoke him. A defense attorney accused an interrogator, in an unrelated incident, of using exactly the same language against his client.
'I get threatened all the time. Harassed all the time,' the Navy guard, sitting at an umbrella-shaded table in a sun-splashed courtyard, said after finishing his shift. He declined to give his name for security reasons.
The sailor, who is African-American and from Fairfax, S.C., said he was threatened only hours earlier.
'This morning, a detainee woke up as I was walking past his cell, put his hand to his throat and, after using a racial slur, said, 'I will kill you. I will kill you in Iraq,'' he said. 'I thought, 'OK,' and kept on going.'
The 19-year-old guard refused to give his name for security reasons, but his tale is hardly unique.
From July 2005 through August, the military recorded 432 assaults by detainees using 'cocktails' of bodily excretions thrown at guards, 227 physical assaults, 99 instances of inciting or participating in disturbances, and 726 threats against guards.
Meanwhile, attorney Clive Stafford Smith, who represents Mohammed el Gharani, who is of Chadian nationality, said interrogators repeatedly used racial slurs against him as part of a pattern of verbal abuse 'which has upset him a lot, and he has attempted to harm himself on more than one occasion.'
Stafford Smith said in an e-mail that el Gharani, 19, lived in Saudi Arabia before traveling to Pakistan, where he was arrested at age 14.
Sometimes, the antagonism between the guards - many of them still in their teens or early 20s - and the detainees turns violent, according to some former detainees.
Habib Rahman, a 20-year-old Afghan who was flown from Guantanamo to his homeland on Thursday, said he was beaten as recently as four months ago.
'They were kicking us all the time, beating us with their hands,' Rahman told reporters in Kabul, adding that he was once kept awake for 38 hours while being questioned.
Army Brig. Gen. Edward A. Leacock, deputy commander of the detention operation, insisted that detainees are treated humanely and noted that an al-Qaida training manual instructs captured members to invent claims of torture.
But Marine Lt. Col. Colby Vokey wrote in his request for an investigation that 'physical and mental abuse of detainees by the guard force at Guantanamo Bay appears to be a regular and common occurence.' An Army colonel, who name has not been released, was assigned on Friday to investigate.
Sgt. Heather Cerveny - the Marine who filed a sworn statement alleging she heard guards discussing how they beat detainees - described in her affidavit hearing a Navy guard justify abuse of detainees.
The guard, identified only as Steven, said that even when a detainee is being good, guards will take his personal items away, to anger him so he can be punished further.
'He said it is because he hates the detainees and that they are bad people,' Cerveny said. 'And he stated that he doesn't like having to take care of them or be nice to them.'
The vast majority of the 450 detainees at Guantanamo have been formally classified as enemy combatants - even though human rights groups say detainees have scant opportunities to defend themselves against often vague and unsubstantiated accusations.
Many soldiers at Guantanamo are convinced all the detainees are dangerous men and don't think twice about whether they deserve to be locked up.
'The reason the detainees are here is they are a threat to the American way of life,' said Army Capt. Dan Byer.
When soldiers pass through the 'sally port' - the heavily guarded entrance to some of the detention camps on this 45-square-mile base - they rip their Velcro-attached name tags off their camouflage uniforms. If the name tags are sewn on, they cover them with black tape. Civilian visitors are advised to put their military-issue ID tags into their pockets.
'This is to prevent detainees from organizing attacks against them or their families,' Army Sgt. Vince Oliver said as he went through the sally port. As he entered the compound, a recording of a muezzin calling Muslims to prayer echoed from loudspeakers.
An Army nurse who said he worked at its medical facility for a year until last May wrote in a blog that he wouldn't hesitate to kill a former detainee if he saw him in his town.
'I can tell you that if I ever saw a detainee face-to-face here in the States, I would immediately assume that I was targeted and do my best to kill them without further warning,' wrote the soldier, who would be identified only by his nickname, Stashiu.
Prospective guards are trained at Fort Lewis, Wash., on the treatment of detainees, including Geneva Conventions provisions which ban abusive and humiliating treatment, said Navy Cmdr. Robert Durand, a Guantanamo spokesman. The guards are even taught Middle Eastern culture and Islamic religious practices, Durand said.
But some would prefer not to be at Guantanamo. The guard from South Carolina said he did not volunteer, but instead was 'voluntold' to come.
Stafford Smith said that as a whole, he came away from his visits to Guantanamo with a good impression of the guards.
'The guards were uniformly pleasant the whole time I was there,' the attorney said. 'They are basically decent people who have been given a terrible job to do.'
The guard from South Carolina said he refrains from retaliating to insults and threats by putting the situation in perspective, and decompresses after his shift by running and listening to jazz.
'I've been called everything in the book,' he said. 'But I know that I still have a job, and a home, and they're going to be here when I leave.'
Copyright © 2006, The Associated Press.
Associated Press Writer
A military officer probing new charges of prisoner abuse here will encounter a pervasive atmosphere of hostility and suspicion between the detainees and U.S. troops who consider themselves at war.
Even on a recent, controlled visit, an Associated Press reporter and photographer found that the prison brims with hatred. Former prisoners say the guards kick and punch them for no reason and treat them as subhuman. Guards say the inmates fling excrement at them, along with racial slurs and death threats.
Guantanamo is under renewed scrutiny after a U.S. Marine working for a detainee's defense team said she heard guards boast about beating detainees and depriving them of personal items without provocation. The guards described the abuse as commonplace, the Marine said in an affidavit, prompting the Pentagon's Inspector General to order an investigation.
In an interview at the base, a guard told the AP journalists a detainee used an ugly racist epithet in an attempt to provoke him. A defense attorney accused an interrogator, in an unrelated incident, of using exactly the same language against his client.
'I get threatened all the time. Harassed all the time,' the Navy guard, sitting at an umbrella-shaded table in a sun-splashed courtyard, said after finishing his shift. He declined to give his name for security reasons.
The sailor, who is African-American and from Fairfax, S.C., said he was threatened only hours earlier.
'This morning, a detainee woke up as I was walking past his cell, put his hand to his throat and, after using a racial slur, said, 'I will kill you. I will kill you in Iraq,'' he said. 'I thought, 'OK,' and kept on going.'
The 19-year-old guard refused to give his name for security reasons, but his tale is hardly unique.
From July 2005 through August, the military recorded 432 assaults by detainees using 'cocktails' of bodily excretions thrown at guards, 227 physical assaults, 99 instances of inciting or participating in disturbances, and 726 threats against guards.
Meanwhile, attorney Clive Stafford Smith, who represents Mohammed el Gharani, who is of Chadian nationality, said interrogators repeatedly used racial slurs against him as part of a pattern of verbal abuse 'which has upset him a lot, and he has attempted to harm himself on more than one occasion.'
Stafford Smith said in an e-mail that el Gharani, 19, lived in Saudi Arabia before traveling to Pakistan, where he was arrested at age 14.
Sometimes, the antagonism between the guards - many of them still in their teens or early 20s - and the detainees turns violent, according to some former detainees.
Habib Rahman, a 20-year-old Afghan who was flown from Guantanamo to his homeland on Thursday, said he was beaten as recently as four months ago.
'They were kicking us all the time, beating us with their hands,' Rahman told reporters in Kabul, adding that he was once kept awake for 38 hours while being questioned.
Army Brig. Gen. Edward A. Leacock, deputy commander of the detention operation, insisted that detainees are treated humanely and noted that an al-Qaida training manual instructs captured members to invent claims of torture.
But Marine Lt. Col. Colby Vokey wrote in his request for an investigation that 'physical and mental abuse of detainees by the guard force at Guantanamo Bay appears to be a regular and common occurence.' An Army colonel, who name has not been released, was assigned on Friday to investigate.
Sgt. Heather Cerveny - the Marine who filed a sworn statement alleging she heard guards discussing how they beat detainees - described in her affidavit hearing a Navy guard justify abuse of detainees.
The guard, identified only as Steven, said that even when a detainee is being good, guards will take his personal items away, to anger him so he can be punished further.
'He said it is because he hates the detainees and that they are bad people,' Cerveny said. 'And he stated that he doesn't like having to take care of them or be nice to them.'
The vast majority of the 450 detainees at Guantanamo have been formally classified as enemy combatants - even though human rights groups say detainees have scant opportunities to defend themselves against often vague and unsubstantiated accusations.
Many soldiers at Guantanamo are convinced all the detainees are dangerous men and don't think twice about whether they deserve to be locked up.
'The reason the detainees are here is they are a threat to the American way of life,' said Army Capt. Dan Byer.
When soldiers pass through the 'sally port' - the heavily guarded entrance to some of the detention camps on this 45-square-mile base - they rip their Velcro-attached name tags off their camouflage uniforms. If the name tags are sewn on, they cover them with black tape. Civilian visitors are advised to put their military-issue ID tags into their pockets.
'This is to prevent detainees from organizing attacks against them or their families,' Army Sgt. Vince Oliver said as he went through the sally port. As he entered the compound, a recording of a muezzin calling Muslims to prayer echoed from loudspeakers.
An Army nurse who said he worked at its medical facility for a year until last May wrote in a blog that he wouldn't hesitate to kill a former detainee if he saw him in his town.
'I can tell you that if I ever saw a detainee face-to-face here in the States, I would immediately assume that I was targeted and do my best to kill them without further warning,' wrote the soldier, who would be identified only by his nickname, Stashiu.
Prospective guards are trained at Fort Lewis, Wash., on the treatment of detainees, including Geneva Conventions provisions which ban abusive and humiliating treatment, said Navy Cmdr. Robert Durand, a Guantanamo spokesman. The guards are even taught Middle Eastern culture and Islamic religious practices, Durand said.
But some would prefer not to be at Guantanamo. The guard from South Carolina said he did not volunteer, but instead was 'voluntold' to come.
Stafford Smith said that as a whole, he came away from his visits to Guantanamo with a good impression of the guards.
'The guards were uniformly pleasant the whole time I was there,' the attorney said. 'They are basically decent people who have been given a terrible job to do.'
The guard from South Carolina said he refrains from retaliating to insults and threats by putting the situation in perspective, and decompresses after his shift by running and listening to jazz.
'I've been called everything in the book,' he said. 'But I know that I still have a job, and a home, and they're going to be here when I leave.'
Copyright © 2006, The Associated Press.
Monday, October 09, 2006
Please Stop This Nonsense With Mark Foley!
FOLEYGATE AND THE EIGHTH COMMANDMENT
By Robert Klein Engler (10/09/2006)
CHICAGO (9 October '06)--The Eighth Commandment, for those who may have forgotten, tells us "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." This commandment warns about misinterpreting the truth in relation to others. The commandment also cautions us not to rush to judgment and warns us not to destroy a man's reputation before the whole truth is known.
It seems homophobia is raising its ugly head in the nation's Capitol because of the Folegate scandal. Republicans as well as Democrats ought to be careful that homophobia does not lead them to bear false witness against their neighbor.
Maybe Congressman Foley is a "creep," but so far we have seen no evidence that he broke any laws. We are also supposed to be innocent until proven guilty in the United States, yet the press and the Internet have gone after Mark Foley in what looks like a witch hunt. Joe Crankshaw calls this whole affair, "Electronic mob rule."
From what we know so far, the e-mails Congressman Foley sent have nothing overtly sexual in them. Furthermore, many say he never had sexual contact with any Congressional page, unlike Gerry Studds, who went with a page to Portugal and never resigned after that. Congressman Studds stayed in office even after he was censured by Congress.
Furthermore, the Instant Messages in question seem mutual, because they went on for a long time, even if they were or were not a "prank." We are learning, too, that the "teen" in these IMs may in fact have been 18. The Drudge Report claims, "A posting of an unredacted instant message session between Rep. Mark Foley and a former congressional page has apparently exposed the identity of the now 21 year-old accuser."
In a recent article in the L. A. Times, another former, unnamed page has come forth and admitted he is gay and at the age of 21, when he was out of the page program, had sex with Congressman Foley. The newspaper says they want to protect the identity of this man by not printing his name. What about protecting the reputation of Mr. Foley? How can you defend yourself against an unnamed accuser? This sexual encounter described in the L. A. Times may be a sin for some voters, but it is not against the law.
Before we throw Congressman Foley completely to the wolves, we better say just exactly what laws he broke. There is no law against being a creep. There is no law against being in the closet, and no law against voting for a gay marriage ban. It looks like now that Congressman Foley can truthfully say, "I never had sexual relations with that boy."
Furthermore, all of the e-mails and IMs found so far on the Internet or in newspapers were sent to young men who had left Washington, DC and were no longer involved in the page program. Why do we have to use the word "disgusting" and "predator" with glee to describe these non-sexual e-mails?
How are we to understand Scott Shuster's comments that border on being libelous? Shuster writes, "This past week it was publicly revealed that Republican Congressman Mark Foley from Florida was engaging in inappropriate sexual behavior with an under aged male congressional page." What public evidence we have so far shows that this is not true. Is asking someone what they want for their birthday sexual behavior?
Likewise, Andy Martin seems in a rush to judgment when he claims, "The FBI is searching for a local boy, someone in the Washington, DC area...that went to Foley's house and did have "contact" with Marky Mark. They will find that boy and, when they do, all hell will break loose."
Maybe Congressman Foley was too close to those pages, maybe he wasn't. Maybe the pages are gay and were going through a "homosexual panic," something a few gay young men experience before they confront honestly their sexual orientation. Be this as it may, there is the even more troubling issue of who released these IMs and e-mails and why?
It should be especially troubling to gays if Democratic operatives were behind the release to the public of Foley's e-mails and Instant Messages solely for political gain. It is morally wrong to ruin a man's life just because it gives someone a political advantage over their opponent.
It is morally wrong, also, to bear false witness against your neighbor. Many of Mark Foley's accusers may be doing that. Many forget, too, that there is a big difference between a doubtful e-mail or Instant Message and an actual blue dress from the Gap.
Congressman Foley may have had a weakness. We all do. He also did some good work while in Congress. The talking heads on television should remember that when it comes to Washington, D. C., it is not with an excuse but with charity that we say, "Let him without sin cast the first stone."
All gays, regardless of their political party, are hurt by media gay bashing. It especially hurts those who work with young people. This scandal casts a chill on straights, too, who have close contact with youths, like wrestling coaches and Boy Scout leaders.
What will any male teacher say, now, when someone that does not like him describes his behavior as "overly-friendly?" Foleygate opens up suspicions in people's hearts and gives them a greater opportunity to bear false witness against a neighbor they do not like or find "creepy."
In a broader context, if we do find that false witness is being brought against Mark Foley by political operatives from the left, then it will be another sign that we are living through the death of liberalism. When the left begins to eat their children, you know they are desperate. Are liberals now beginning to cannibalize closeted gays, the very people who often come to them for shelter?
When they look the matter over closely, the so-called Christian Right will weight this scandal justly. Republicans know that the Christian Right does not like sex scandals of whatever kind. That's why Republicans try to deal with them quickly. In Illinois, Jack Ryan was asked to step down from his bid to be Senator. Ryan's scandal allegedly involved only him and his wife. No laws were broken here, either.
To use political and media power to bear false witness is another matter. It is possible that the Christian Right will rightly conclude that abuse by the media and politicians in Foleygate is a greater evil than Mark Foley's questionable sexual behavior. Given this, they will not stay home election day, but go to vote.
Foleygate, unfortunately, may show us that in their quest for power, some politicians will do anything. They will abuse the very gay people they claim to support in order to gain a political advantage. After this scandal that the left may have fueled, it is beyond the reasoning of many how this very same left expects to pass gay marriage into law.
Like that village in Vietnam, the left may have destroyed gays in order to save them. Could it be that with Foleygate the left has shot itself in the foot, again? Or, better said, in another part of the male anatomy.
Robert Klein Engler lives in Chicago. He is a graduate of the University of Chicago Divinity School. His book, A WINTER OF WORDS, about the turmoil at Daley College, is available from amazon.com.
By Robert Klein Engler (10/09/2006)
CHICAGO (9 October '06)--The Eighth Commandment, for those who may have forgotten, tells us "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." This commandment warns about misinterpreting the truth in relation to others. The commandment also cautions us not to rush to judgment and warns us not to destroy a man's reputation before the whole truth is known.
It seems homophobia is raising its ugly head in the nation's Capitol because of the Folegate scandal. Republicans as well as Democrats ought to be careful that homophobia does not lead them to bear false witness against their neighbor.
Maybe Congressman Foley is a "creep," but so far we have seen no evidence that he broke any laws. We are also supposed to be innocent until proven guilty in the United States, yet the press and the Internet have gone after Mark Foley in what looks like a witch hunt. Joe Crankshaw calls this whole affair, "Electronic mob rule."
From what we know so far, the e-mails Congressman Foley sent have nothing overtly sexual in them. Furthermore, many say he never had sexual contact with any Congressional page, unlike Gerry Studds, who went with a page to Portugal and never resigned after that. Congressman Studds stayed in office even after he was censured by Congress.
Furthermore, the Instant Messages in question seem mutual, because they went on for a long time, even if they were or were not a "prank." We are learning, too, that the "teen" in these IMs may in fact have been 18. The Drudge Report claims, "A posting of an unredacted instant message session between Rep. Mark Foley and a former congressional page has apparently exposed the identity of the now 21 year-old accuser."
In a recent article in the L. A. Times, another former, unnamed page has come forth and admitted he is gay and at the age of 21, when he was out of the page program, had sex with Congressman Foley. The newspaper says they want to protect the identity of this man by not printing his name. What about protecting the reputation of Mr. Foley? How can you defend yourself against an unnamed accuser? This sexual encounter described in the L. A. Times may be a sin for some voters, but it is not against the law.
Before we throw Congressman Foley completely to the wolves, we better say just exactly what laws he broke. There is no law against being a creep. There is no law against being in the closet, and no law against voting for a gay marriage ban. It looks like now that Congressman Foley can truthfully say, "I never had sexual relations with that boy."
Furthermore, all of the e-mails and IMs found so far on the Internet or in newspapers were sent to young men who had left Washington, DC and were no longer involved in the page program. Why do we have to use the word "disgusting" and "predator" with glee to describe these non-sexual e-mails?
How are we to understand Scott Shuster's comments that border on being libelous? Shuster writes, "This past week it was publicly revealed that Republican Congressman Mark Foley from Florida was engaging in inappropriate sexual behavior with an under aged male congressional page." What public evidence we have so far shows that this is not true. Is asking someone what they want for their birthday sexual behavior?
Likewise, Andy Martin seems in a rush to judgment when he claims, "The FBI is searching for a local boy, someone in the Washington, DC area...that went to Foley's house and did have "contact" with Marky Mark. They will find that boy and, when they do, all hell will break loose."
Maybe Congressman Foley was too close to those pages, maybe he wasn't. Maybe the pages are gay and were going through a "homosexual panic," something a few gay young men experience before they confront honestly their sexual orientation. Be this as it may, there is the even more troubling issue of who released these IMs and e-mails and why?
It should be especially troubling to gays if Democratic operatives were behind the release to the public of Foley's e-mails and Instant Messages solely for political gain. It is morally wrong to ruin a man's life just because it gives someone a political advantage over their opponent.
It is morally wrong, also, to bear false witness against your neighbor. Many of Mark Foley's accusers may be doing that. Many forget, too, that there is a big difference between a doubtful e-mail or Instant Message and an actual blue dress from the Gap.
Congressman Foley may have had a weakness. We all do. He also did some good work while in Congress. The talking heads on television should remember that when it comes to Washington, D. C., it is not with an excuse but with charity that we say, "Let him without sin cast the first stone."
All gays, regardless of their political party, are hurt by media gay bashing. It especially hurts those who work with young people. This scandal casts a chill on straights, too, who have close contact with youths, like wrestling coaches and Boy Scout leaders.
What will any male teacher say, now, when someone that does not like him describes his behavior as "overly-friendly?" Foleygate opens up suspicions in people's hearts and gives them a greater opportunity to bear false witness against a neighbor they do not like or find "creepy."
In a broader context, if we do find that false witness is being brought against Mark Foley by political operatives from the left, then it will be another sign that we are living through the death of liberalism. When the left begins to eat their children, you know they are desperate. Are liberals now beginning to cannibalize closeted gays, the very people who often come to them for shelter?
When they look the matter over closely, the so-called Christian Right will weight this scandal justly. Republicans know that the Christian Right does not like sex scandals of whatever kind. That's why Republicans try to deal with them quickly. In Illinois, Jack Ryan was asked to step down from his bid to be Senator. Ryan's scandal allegedly involved only him and his wife. No laws were broken here, either.
To use political and media power to bear false witness is another matter. It is possible that the Christian Right will rightly conclude that abuse by the media and politicians in Foleygate is a greater evil than Mark Foley's questionable sexual behavior. Given this, they will not stay home election day, but go to vote.
Foleygate, unfortunately, may show us that in their quest for power, some politicians will do anything. They will abuse the very gay people they claim to support in order to gain a political advantage. After this scandal that the left may have fueled, it is beyond the reasoning of many how this very same left expects to pass gay marriage into law.
Like that village in Vietnam, the left may have destroyed gays in order to save them. Could it be that with Foleygate the left has shot itself in the foot, again? Or, better said, in another part of the male anatomy.
Robert Klein Engler lives in Chicago. He is a graduate of the University of Chicago Divinity School. His book, A WINTER OF WORDS, about the turmoil at Daley College, is available from amazon.com.
Sunday, October 08, 2006
Foley Case Upsets Balance of Gay Republicans
Foley Case Upsets Balance of Gay Republicans
By MARK LEIBOVICH
WASHINGTON, Oct. 7 — Every month or so, 10 top staff members from Capitol Hill meet over dinner to commiserate about their uneasy experience as gay Republicans. In a wry reference to the K Street Project, the party’s campaign to build influence along the city’s lobbying corridor, they privately call themselves the P Street Project, a reference to a street cutting through a local gay enclave.
For many of those men and other gay Republicans in political Washington, reconciling their private lives and public roles has required a discreet existence. But in the last week, the Mark Foley scandal has upset that careful balance.
Since Representative Foley, Republican of Florida, resigned after it was revealed he had sent sexually explicit electronic messages to male pages, gay Republicans in Washington have been under what one describes as “siege and suspicion.”
Some conservative groups blamed the “gay lifestyle” and the gathering force of the “gay agenda” for the scandal. Others equated homosexuality with pedophilia, a link that has long outraged gay men and lesbians.
Conservative blogs and Web sites pointed out that gay staff members played principal roles in investigating the Foley case, suggesting that the party was betrayed by gay men trying to hide misconduct by one of their own. In the meantime, a group of gay activists, angered by what they see as hypocrisy by gay Republicans, have begun circulating a document known as The List, a roster of gay Congressional staff members and their Republican bosses.
“You can see where it would be easy for some people to blame gays for something that might bring down the party in Congress,” said Brian Bennett, a gay Republican political consultant. He was a longtime chief of staff to former Representative Robert K. Dornan, Republican of California, who regularly referred to gays as Sodomites.
“I’m just waiting for someone in a position of authority to make this a gay issue,” Mr. Bennett said of the Foley case.
The presence of homosexuals, particularly gay men, in crucial staff positions has been an enduring if largely hidden staple of Republican life for decades, and particularly in recent years. They have played decisive roles in passing legislation, running campaigns and advancing careers.
Known in some insider slang as the Velvet Mafia or the Pink Elephants, gay Republicans tend to be less open about their sexual orientation than their Democratic counterparts. Even though the G.O.P. fashions itself as “the party of Lincoln” and a promoter of tolerance, it is perceived as hostile by many gay men and lesbians. Republicans have promoted a “traditional values” agenda, while some conservatives have turned the “radical gay subculture” into a reliable campaign villain. And there are few visible role models in the party; Representative Jim Kolbe of Arizona is the only openly gay Republican in Congress.
As the blame from the Foley case has been parceled out in recent days, some people in Washington suggested that the Republican leadership’s inadequate response to alarms about Mr. Foley was borne of squeamishness in dealing with a so-called gay issue. Meanwhile, some Republican staff members worried that several gay men caught up in the scandal would be treated unfairly.
They include Kirk Fordham, Mr. Foley’s onetime chief of staff who resigned Wednesday as an aide to Representative Thomas M. Reynolds, Republican of New York, and Jeff Trandahl, formerly the clerk of the House of Representatives, a powerful post with oversight of hundreds of staffers and the page program. The two men were among the first to learn of Mr. Foley’s inappropriate communications. Along with the Republican leadership, they have been criticized for failing to act more aggressively to stop the congressman’s behavior, and possibly covering up for Mr. Foley.
Mr. Fordham and Mr. Trandahl did not hide their homosexuality, and they were well known in Washington’s gay community. (Neither returned phone calls seeking comment.) Others, though, strenuously protect their private life.
“You learn to compartmentalize really well,” said one Republican strategist who, like many gay Republicans interviewed for this article, would speak only anonymously for fear of adversely affecting his career.
Mr. Fordham’s history illustrates the potential tensions between private life and professional rhetoric. After leaving Mr. Foley’s office in 2004, he worked as finance director for the campaign of Senator Mel Martinez, Republican of Florida. In that race, a Martinez campaign flier accused a political rival of favoring the “radical homosexual lobby” by supporting hate crimes legislation that included protections for gay men and lesbians.
One of the inevitable facts, said Mr. Bennett, the former Dornan aide, is that “there are just going to be some days when it’s hard to be a gay Republican.”
When asked why he remains in the party, Mr. Bennett gave an answer common to gay Republicans: he said that he remained fundamentally in sync with the small government principles of the party and its approach to national security, and that he was committed to changing what he considers its antigay attitudes.
“I’m fighting hard, every day,” said Mr. Bennett, who was among a small group of gay Republicans who met with George W. Bush during his 2000 presidential campaign.
Like Mr. Bennett, other gay staff members wind up working for politicians they consider infamous for their inflammatory remarks and hostility to their cause.
Robert Traynham, the top communications aide to Senator Rick Santorum, Republican of Pennsylvania, endured the fallout from an interview with The Associated Press in 2003 in which Mr. Santorum seemed to equate homosexuality with bestiality, bigamy and incest, among other things. Mr. Traynham had been openly gay for years, but that was not widely known in his professional life — until a gay rights advocate revealed his sexual orientation last year. Mr. Traynham confirmed the report, and Mr. Santorum issued a statement in support of his aide.
In contrast to what many view as the right’s increasingly antigay rhetoric, members of both parties say there has been a growing tolerance for gay men and lesbians within the Republican ranks.
“There’s been a change from 20 years ago when people used to be hyperconscious of staying in the closet,” said Steve Elmendorf, an openly gay Democratic strategist who was the chief aide to former Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri, who served as the Democratic leader. “Now there’s more of an evolution to a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ rule.”
An addendum could be “don’t flaunt.” “You just don’t wear it on your sleeve, bottom line,” said one gay Republican staff member.
“I always made a point of dating women,” said Mr. Bennett, who disclosed that he was gay after his tenure with Mr. Dornan.
Others point out that advancing the beliefs and careers of the boss is a priority, and staff members are expected to stay in the background. “Discretion is what most members expect from their staff, no matter who you are,” said Tracey St. Pierre, who was chief of staff for former Representative Charles T. Canady, Republican of Florida.
“For many conservative Republicans, just being gay in itself is an act of indiscretion,” said Ms. St. Pierre, who is gay but was not open about it until shortly before leaving Mr. Canady’s office. When she worked with him in the mid-1990’s, one of his chief causes was legislation that would ban same-sex marriage. Ms. St. Pierre, who works for a federal agency, considers herself an independent now.
The code of behavior largely extends to Republican politicians themselves, a point underscored by Mr. Foley, who just this week publicly acknowledged that he was gay. He appeared in public with women whenever possible and held parties at his home, which one guest described as decorated with photographs of himself with attractive women.
Mr. Foley had always refused to discuss his sexual orientation, a topic that drew increasing attention as he considered a bid for the Senate in 2004. Amid intensifying rumors about his personal life, he decided not to run.
Despite Mr. Foley’s silence, people on Capitol Hill assumed he was gay. “It was commonly known on Capitol Hill by staff and members,” said Representative Ray LaHood, Republican of Illinois. “People have their own lifestyles as long as they mind their own business and play by the rules.”
Joe Scarborough, a former Republican congressman from Florida who served with Mr. Foley, said, “If you’re a gay Republican, you have to act like a Republican.” Mr. Scarborough, who is now the host of “Scarborough Country” on MSNBC, said “acting like a Republican” entailed going out on the campaign trail “talking about guns, chewing tobacco and riding around in a pickup truck.”
He contrasted that with gay Democrats, “who can strut around and still get a standing ovation.” He cited the case of former Representative Gerry E. Studds, a Democrat of Massachusetts who is openly gay, who became embroiled in a sex scandal involving a page and still won re-election. And Representative Barney Frank, another gay Democratic Massachusetts congressman, has attained almost iconic status among gay men and lesbians.
Gay members of both parties describe the Foley matter as something that could jeopardize the role that gay men and lesbians have assumed in Republican politics.
One gay Republican campaign strategist said he feared that conservatives would “play to the base” and redouble their efforts to vilify homosexuals. “It’s one of the places the party goes when it’s in trouble,” he said. “A lot of us are holding our breath to see how this plays out.”
By MARK LEIBOVICH
WASHINGTON, Oct. 7 — Every month or so, 10 top staff members from Capitol Hill meet over dinner to commiserate about their uneasy experience as gay Republicans. In a wry reference to the K Street Project, the party’s campaign to build influence along the city’s lobbying corridor, they privately call themselves the P Street Project, a reference to a street cutting through a local gay enclave.
For many of those men and other gay Republicans in political Washington, reconciling their private lives and public roles has required a discreet existence. But in the last week, the Mark Foley scandal has upset that careful balance.
Since Representative Foley, Republican of Florida, resigned after it was revealed he had sent sexually explicit electronic messages to male pages, gay Republicans in Washington have been under what one describes as “siege and suspicion.”
Some conservative groups blamed the “gay lifestyle” and the gathering force of the “gay agenda” for the scandal. Others equated homosexuality with pedophilia, a link that has long outraged gay men and lesbians.
Conservative blogs and Web sites pointed out that gay staff members played principal roles in investigating the Foley case, suggesting that the party was betrayed by gay men trying to hide misconduct by one of their own. In the meantime, a group of gay activists, angered by what they see as hypocrisy by gay Republicans, have begun circulating a document known as The List, a roster of gay Congressional staff members and their Republican bosses.
“You can see where it would be easy for some people to blame gays for something that might bring down the party in Congress,” said Brian Bennett, a gay Republican political consultant. He was a longtime chief of staff to former Representative Robert K. Dornan, Republican of California, who regularly referred to gays as Sodomites.
“I’m just waiting for someone in a position of authority to make this a gay issue,” Mr. Bennett said of the Foley case.
The presence of homosexuals, particularly gay men, in crucial staff positions has been an enduring if largely hidden staple of Republican life for decades, and particularly in recent years. They have played decisive roles in passing legislation, running campaigns and advancing careers.
Known in some insider slang as the Velvet Mafia or the Pink Elephants, gay Republicans tend to be less open about their sexual orientation than their Democratic counterparts. Even though the G.O.P. fashions itself as “the party of Lincoln” and a promoter of tolerance, it is perceived as hostile by many gay men and lesbians. Republicans have promoted a “traditional values” agenda, while some conservatives have turned the “radical gay subculture” into a reliable campaign villain. And there are few visible role models in the party; Representative Jim Kolbe of Arizona is the only openly gay Republican in Congress.
As the blame from the Foley case has been parceled out in recent days, some people in Washington suggested that the Republican leadership’s inadequate response to alarms about Mr. Foley was borne of squeamishness in dealing with a so-called gay issue. Meanwhile, some Republican staff members worried that several gay men caught up in the scandal would be treated unfairly.
They include Kirk Fordham, Mr. Foley’s onetime chief of staff who resigned Wednesday as an aide to Representative Thomas M. Reynolds, Republican of New York, and Jeff Trandahl, formerly the clerk of the House of Representatives, a powerful post with oversight of hundreds of staffers and the page program. The two men were among the first to learn of Mr. Foley’s inappropriate communications. Along with the Republican leadership, they have been criticized for failing to act more aggressively to stop the congressman’s behavior, and possibly covering up for Mr. Foley.
Mr. Fordham and Mr. Trandahl did not hide their homosexuality, and they were well known in Washington’s gay community. (Neither returned phone calls seeking comment.) Others, though, strenuously protect their private life.
“You learn to compartmentalize really well,” said one Republican strategist who, like many gay Republicans interviewed for this article, would speak only anonymously for fear of adversely affecting his career.
Mr. Fordham’s history illustrates the potential tensions between private life and professional rhetoric. After leaving Mr. Foley’s office in 2004, he worked as finance director for the campaign of Senator Mel Martinez, Republican of Florida. In that race, a Martinez campaign flier accused a political rival of favoring the “radical homosexual lobby” by supporting hate crimes legislation that included protections for gay men and lesbians.
One of the inevitable facts, said Mr. Bennett, the former Dornan aide, is that “there are just going to be some days when it’s hard to be a gay Republican.”
When asked why he remains in the party, Mr. Bennett gave an answer common to gay Republicans: he said that he remained fundamentally in sync with the small government principles of the party and its approach to national security, and that he was committed to changing what he considers its antigay attitudes.
“I’m fighting hard, every day,” said Mr. Bennett, who was among a small group of gay Republicans who met with George W. Bush during his 2000 presidential campaign.
Like Mr. Bennett, other gay staff members wind up working for politicians they consider infamous for their inflammatory remarks and hostility to their cause.
Robert Traynham, the top communications aide to Senator Rick Santorum, Republican of Pennsylvania, endured the fallout from an interview with The Associated Press in 2003 in which Mr. Santorum seemed to equate homosexuality with bestiality, bigamy and incest, among other things. Mr. Traynham had been openly gay for years, but that was not widely known in his professional life — until a gay rights advocate revealed his sexual orientation last year. Mr. Traynham confirmed the report, and Mr. Santorum issued a statement in support of his aide.
In contrast to what many view as the right’s increasingly antigay rhetoric, members of both parties say there has been a growing tolerance for gay men and lesbians within the Republican ranks.
“There’s been a change from 20 years ago when people used to be hyperconscious of staying in the closet,” said Steve Elmendorf, an openly gay Democratic strategist who was the chief aide to former Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri, who served as the Democratic leader. “Now there’s more of an evolution to a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ rule.”
An addendum could be “don’t flaunt.” “You just don’t wear it on your sleeve, bottom line,” said one gay Republican staff member.
“I always made a point of dating women,” said Mr. Bennett, who disclosed that he was gay after his tenure with Mr. Dornan.
Others point out that advancing the beliefs and careers of the boss is a priority, and staff members are expected to stay in the background. “Discretion is what most members expect from their staff, no matter who you are,” said Tracey St. Pierre, who was chief of staff for former Representative Charles T. Canady, Republican of Florida.
“For many conservative Republicans, just being gay in itself is an act of indiscretion,” said Ms. St. Pierre, who is gay but was not open about it until shortly before leaving Mr. Canady’s office. When she worked with him in the mid-1990’s, one of his chief causes was legislation that would ban same-sex marriage. Ms. St. Pierre, who works for a federal agency, considers herself an independent now.
The code of behavior largely extends to Republican politicians themselves, a point underscored by Mr. Foley, who just this week publicly acknowledged that he was gay. He appeared in public with women whenever possible and held parties at his home, which one guest described as decorated with photographs of himself with attractive women.
Mr. Foley had always refused to discuss his sexual orientation, a topic that drew increasing attention as he considered a bid for the Senate in 2004. Amid intensifying rumors about his personal life, he decided not to run.
Despite Mr. Foley’s silence, people on Capitol Hill assumed he was gay. “It was commonly known on Capitol Hill by staff and members,” said Representative Ray LaHood, Republican of Illinois. “People have their own lifestyles as long as they mind their own business and play by the rules.”
Joe Scarborough, a former Republican congressman from Florida who served with Mr. Foley, said, “If you’re a gay Republican, you have to act like a Republican.” Mr. Scarborough, who is now the host of “Scarborough Country” on MSNBC, said “acting like a Republican” entailed going out on the campaign trail “talking about guns, chewing tobacco and riding around in a pickup truck.”
He contrasted that with gay Democrats, “who can strut around and still get a standing ovation.” He cited the case of former Representative Gerry E. Studds, a Democrat of Massachusetts who is openly gay, who became embroiled in a sex scandal involving a page and still won re-election. And Representative Barney Frank, another gay Democratic Massachusetts congressman, has attained almost iconic status among gay men and lesbians.
Gay members of both parties describe the Foley matter as something that could jeopardize the role that gay men and lesbians have assumed in Republican politics.
One gay Republican campaign strategist said he feared that conservatives would “play to the base” and redouble their efforts to vilify homosexuals. “It’s one of the places the party goes when it’s in trouble,” he said. “A lot of us are holding our breath to see how this plays out.”
Porn Case Dismissed Against Ex-JonBenet Subject; Would-Be Ped-O-Phile Walks Free.
A collossal waste of taxpayer's money ... Would-Be Ped-O-phile bilks USA taxpayers out of ten thousand dollars, King Crab dinner, free air flight back to USA, etc, etc, ad-naseum. And now it appears, State of California not in a position to try him either. PAT
Case dismissed against ex-JonBenet suspect
Updated 10/6/2006 4:50 AM ET
By John Ritter, USA TODAY
SAN FRANCISCO — Nearly two months after his arrest as a suspect in one of the USA's most lurid unsolved slayings, John Mark Karr was freed Thursday after prosecutors said they don't have enough evidence to try him on child pornography charges.
Judge Rene Chouteau ordered Karr to be immediately released from jail. He was not in the court for the hearing.
Karr was briefly held in the 1996 death of child beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey but was cleared when Boulder, Colo., authorities said in August that DNA tests failed to link him to the crime.
He was extradited to Sonoma County, Calif., last month to face 5-year-old misdemeanor charges of possessing illicit computer images and had been in jail awaiting trial. The sheriff's department admitted it lost original computer evidence, leading to Thursday's dismissal.
The 41-year-old former schoolteacher, who jumped bail in 2001, ended up in Thailand, where he was arrested Aug. 16.
"Hasn't this been a colossal waste of the taxpayers' money," said Laurie Levenson, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.
Levenson says Karr now becomes "a headache" for law enforcement. "What I think everyone recognizes is that this guy on some level is a threat," she says. "He's a threat, but he's not yet a criminal."
The apparent mishandling of evidence between Karr's 2001 arrest and his return to California "probably happens more often than people think," Levenson says. "It's an embarrassment, but it usually doesn't happen in a case under the limelight."
Karr's lawyers had tried to get the charges thrown out and were asking the judge to bar evidence when prosecutors said they couldn't establish when the child porn images had been downloaded on Karr's computer.
"The impression that we've had all along is that the prosecution had every intention of getting this case to trial, regardless of the evidence," said defense lawyer Robert Amparan. "I am pleasantly surprised by them having done the right thing."
Even if Karr had been convicted of the charges, he likely wouldn't have served any additional time. Prosecutors admitted as much. Karr had spent six months in jail after his 2001 arrest before fleeing.
"We probably will hear from him again in some way or another," Levenson says. "Either the criminal justice system will initiate it or he will."
Thai authorities took him into custody after he wrote e-mails and made telephone calls describing how he was with JonBenet in her home when she died.
"Here's a guy who thrived at the world's attention," Levenson says. "It's very hard for me to believe that he's just going to go back to obscurity."
Contributing: Wire reports
Case dismissed against ex-JonBenet suspect
Updated 10/6/2006 4:50 AM ET
By John Ritter, USA TODAY
SAN FRANCISCO — Nearly two months after his arrest as a suspect in one of the USA's most lurid unsolved slayings, John Mark Karr was freed Thursday after prosecutors said they don't have enough evidence to try him on child pornography charges.
Judge Rene Chouteau ordered Karr to be immediately released from jail. He was not in the court for the hearing.
Karr was briefly held in the 1996 death of child beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey but was cleared when Boulder, Colo., authorities said in August that DNA tests failed to link him to the crime.
He was extradited to Sonoma County, Calif., last month to face 5-year-old misdemeanor charges of possessing illicit computer images and had been in jail awaiting trial. The sheriff's department admitted it lost original computer evidence, leading to Thursday's dismissal.
The 41-year-old former schoolteacher, who jumped bail in 2001, ended up in Thailand, where he was arrested Aug. 16.
"Hasn't this been a colossal waste of the taxpayers' money," said Laurie Levenson, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.
Levenson says Karr now becomes "a headache" for law enforcement. "What I think everyone recognizes is that this guy on some level is a threat," she says. "He's a threat, but he's not yet a criminal."
The apparent mishandling of evidence between Karr's 2001 arrest and his return to California "probably happens more often than people think," Levenson says. "It's an embarrassment, but it usually doesn't happen in a case under the limelight."
Karr's lawyers had tried to get the charges thrown out and were asking the judge to bar evidence when prosecutors said they couldn't establish when the child porn images had been downloaded on Karr's computer.
"The impression that we've had all along is that the prosecution had every intention of getting this case to trial, regardless of the evidence," said defense lawyer Robert Amparan. "I am pleasantly surprised by them having done the right thing."
Even if Karr had been convicted of the charges, he likely wouldn't have served any additional time. Prosecutors admitted as much. Karr had spent six months in jail after his 2001 arrest before fleeing.
"We probably will hear from him again in some way or another," Levenson says. "Either the criminal justice system will initiate it or he will."
Thai authorities took him into custody after he wrote e-mails and made telephone calls describing how he was with JonBenet in her home when she died.
"Here's a guy who thrived at the world's attention," Levenson says. "It's very hard for me to believe that he's just going to go back to obscurity."
Contributing: Wire reports
Friday, October 06, 2006
Congressman Foley and 'Family Values'
E.J. Dionne Jr., Washington Post Writers Group
Friday, October 6, 2006
(10-06) 04:00 PDT Washington -- WE NEED to have a long talk about the meaning of "family values."
The "we" here is our country, and the discussion should be encouraged by the shameful behavior of former U.S. Rep. Mark Foley and the reaction, or nonreaction, of the House Republican leadership.
Over the next few weeks, the argument will be partisan in nature because that's what always happens during an election. Democrats will rightly argue that the Republican brass seemed far more interested in ignoring Foley than in doing anything that might endanger their grip on power. The Republicans should pay a price, and I suspect they will.
But in the long run, this episode should be our national opportunity to break free from empty, politically driven rhetoric that has nothing to do with strengthening families and everything to do with electoral advantages.
Right out of the box, the widespread reaction to the Foley episode was that it would hurt the Republicans with their "base" of Christian and moral conservatives.
Well, yes it will. But the implication here is that those of us who are not conservatives might somehow be less affected by what Foley did. Excuse me, but I am a married father of three children and that's more important to me than the fact that I am a liberal. Our kids matter infinitely more to my wife and me than the results of an election, even an election we both care a lot about.
Like just about every parent I know, I was horrified by this episode because I couldn't believe that the politicians involved didn't themselves think first not as politicians, but as parents, grandparents, aunts or uncles when they learned of Foley's special interest in a page.
"Family values" is more than a political slogan to be pulled off the shelf at election time. Republicans and conservatives do not have a monopoly on the commitments behind the phrase. For too long, liberals have reacted against the idea of "family values" because they wrongly accepted it as a conservatives-only slogan. And many liberals who lead thoroughly old-fashioned, child-centered, family-oriented lives have not been willing to integrate that fact into the way they talk about policy.
Some liberals have been reluctant to embrace "family values" because they see the phrase as implying a negative attitude toward single people or gays or lesbians. But the Foley case should demonstrate that the issue here is not about homosexuality. It is about whether adults, straight and gay alike, behave responsibly toward the young.
The fact that Foley is gay is not the issue. What should upset us are the inappropriate ways in which he expressed his sexuality. We would be condemning him if he had been a 52-year-old heterosexual making similar come-ons to underage females. And, yes, we should be unapologetically judgmental about such things.
And, by the way, isn't it strange that politicians who expressed moral objections to the desire of adult gays and lesbians to marry seemed to take the Foley matter so lightly when it first came to their attention? Where is the morality here?
I would ask my friends who are Christian conservatives to think about this. But I'd also ask my liberal friends to be more willing to come out as family-oriented people. Same-sex marriage is not the greatest threat to the heterosexual family. Misbehavior and irresponsibility by married heterosexuals do far more damage to families and children. Liberals should be unafraid to embrace the language of personal responsibility. In my experience, there's not a dime's worth of difference between my morally conservative friends and neighbors and me in our attitudes toward the obligations of parenthood.
And let economic liberals and moral conservatives come together to discuss how our society has made it more difficult for parents to do the job right. The family-values issues that we can do the most about through government and private-sector policies include how we organize work, how we provide for parental leave time, how we schedule the school day, how we guarantee medical benefits -- in short, how we can make it easier for mothers and fathers alike to juggle their responsibilities.
You might say that these questions are far afield from the Foley scandal. They are not.
The issue in the Foley case, at root, is no different from the issues raised by the great array of policy questions Congress faces all the time: When confronted with an issue, do politicians focus on narrow political imperatives, or do they care most about the well-being of children and families? The politicians should have asked that question in Foley's case, and they should ask it about a lot of other issues, too.
Friday, October 6, 2006
(10-06) 04:00 PDT Washington -- WE NEED to have a long talk about the meaning of "family values."
The "we" here is our country, and the discussion should be encouraged by the shameful behavior of former U.S. Rep. Mark Foley and the reaction, or nonreaction, of the House Republican leadership.
Over the next few weeks, the argument will be partisan in nature because that's what always happens during an election. Democrats will rightly argue that the Republican brass seemed far more interested in ignoring Foley than in doing anything that might endanger their grip on power. The Republicans should pay a price, and I suspect they will.
But in the long run, this episode should be our national opportunity to break free from empty, politically driven rhetoric that has nothing to do with strengthening families and everything to do with electoral advantages.
Right out of the box, the widespread reaction to the Foley episode was that it would hurt the Republicans with their "base" of Christian and moral conservatives.
Well, yes it will. But the implication here is that those of us who are not conservatives might somehow be less affected by what Foley did. Excuse me, but I am a married father of three children and that's more important to me than the fact that I am a liberal. Our kids matter infinitely more to my wife and me than the results of an election, even an election we both care a lot about.
Like just about every parent I know, I was horrified by this episode because I couldn't believe that the politicians involved didn't themselves think first not as politicians, but as parents, grandparents, aunts or uncles when they learned of Foley's special interest in a page.
"Family values" is more than a political slogan to be pulled off the shelf at election time. Republicans and conservatives do not have a monopoly on the commitments behind the phrase. For too long, liberals have reacted against the idea of "family values" because they wrongly accepted it as a conservatives-only slogan. And many liberals who lead thoroughly old-fashioned, child-centered, family-oriented lives have not been willing to integrate that fact into the way they talk about policy.
Some liberals have been reluctant to embrace "family values" because they see the phrase as implying a negative attitude toward single people or gays or lesbians. But the Foley case should demonstrate that the issue here is not about homosexuality. It is about whether adults, straight and gay alike, behave responsibly toward the young.
The fact that Foley is gay is not the issue. What should upset us are the inappropriate ways in which he expressed his sexuality. We would be condemning him if he had been a 52-year-old heterosexual making similar come-ons to underage females. And, yes, we should be unapologetically judgmental about such things.
And, by the way, isn't it strange that politicians who expressed moral objections to the desire of adult gays and lesbians to marry seemed to take the Foley matter so lightly when it first came to their attention? Where is the morality here?
I would ask my friends who are Christian conservatives to think about this. But I'd also ask my liberal friends to be more willing to come out as family-oriented people. Same-sex marriage is not the greatest threat to the heterosexual family. Misbehavior and irresponsibility by married heterosexuals do far more damage to families and children. Liberals should be unafraid to embrace the language of personal responsibility. In my experience, there's not a dime's worth of difference between my morally conservative friends and neighbors and me in our attitudes toward the obligations of parenthood.
And let economic liberals and moral conservatives come together to discuss how our society has made it more difficult for parents to do the job right. The family-values issues that we can do the most about through government and private-sector policies include how we organize work, how we provide for parental leave time, how we schedule the school day, how we guarantee medical benefits -- in short, how we can make it easier for mothers and fathers alike to juggle their responsibilities.
You might say that these questions are far afield from the Foley scandal. They are not.
The issue in the Foley case, at root, is no different from the issues raised by the great array of policy questions Congress faces all the time: When confronted with an issue, do politicians focus on narrow political imperatives, or do they care most about the well-being of children and families? The politicians should have asked that question in Foley's case, and they should ask it about a lot of other issues, too.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Foley Sets Equal Rights for LGBT Americans Back Years
This posting, by Todd Hill in the Campus Progress Blog tells how many of us feel today, thinking about Congressman Foley. PAT
Post from Campus Progress Blog:
Foley Sets Equal Rights for LGBT Americans Back Years
By ToddHill - Oct 4th, 2006 at 11:41 am EDT
As disgusting as former Congressman Mark Foley's actions were, and no matter how many people voice outrage at his actions, one fact is quite clear: Foley has set equal rights and opportunities way back for gay Americans.
I knew the very minute this scandal broke that our political opponents on the Right, including the Moral soldiers of the Christian extremists, would be pointing to this scenario as the very reason homosexuals should be condemned in our society, and how gays can't be trusted to be around children because they will prey on them like a spider prey's on a trapped fly. According to Texas Women's University around 95% of all child molesters are heterosexual, not homosexual. The claims by some that the majority of child predators are homosexuals are simply, and unequivocally not true. I challenge my fellow members of the LGBT community to stand up and denounce such unfounded comparisons in order to salvage efforts towards equality and opportunity.
I'm gay, and was molested as a child. The last thing I have a desire to do is to rob the innocence of another child, especially one of the same gender as me, and the same goes for most homosexuals who might also have been molested. Being molested plays no role in someone becoming, or being, homosexual. I know for a fact that thousands of Americans are molested today, and equal amounts, if not more, in years past. A large percentage of those individuals have no desire to turn around and rob the innocence of another child much like they were at such a young, and vulnerable age. The reason men and women molest children is because they are easy prey. They are easy to manipulate, control, terrorize, threaten, and take advantage of; it is the very cycle of nature at work. They rob them of their innocence and this action has no limitations in of it. It's the same reason it is so easy for a bully to pick on someone smaller then them instead of picking on someone their own size. Or the very reason larger animals that desire food will attack the smallest or weakest link of a herd in order to best yield themselves food to eat.
It is incredibly important to understand the difference between molestation and pedophilia, which often get blurred during such spats of hateful rhetoric towards gay America. Pedophiles are males or females with sexual thoughts or desires for younger, even pre-pubescent children. A pedophile may have the desire for sex with a child, but never act on it. A child-molester has the same desires but actually, physically acts upon them.
Here are the facts as we know them today. Foley claims to have been molested as a child, was a closeted homosexual, preyed on young teenaged boys, and now blames alcoholism for all his problems. Mark Foley's main problem was the fact he hid who he truly was, which resulted in him sneaking around like a cat at night, and now forces his lawyer to tell the world he was gay when everyone already knew that, and attempts to divulge sorrow from the masses because he was molested. As if that is supposed to give him a free pass for his disgusting actions. Foley was a pedophile, not a child-molester, and his preference was for young male-to-old male sexual molestation in his mind. Homosexuality and molestation are not one in the same, they are polar opposites. Religious extremists have now seized this story as their moral mission to once again piñata the LGBT community for even existing, instead of fully investigating the ranks of their own clergy who so often physically molest young men and women in communities across the United States. The Roman Catholic sex abuse cases are the most recent example of this, including allegations the current Pope Benedict XVI was involved in the cover up. The fact is that Mark Foley waited too late in his life to come to terms with his sexuality, and because he did so he acted upon his homosexual tendencies by dreaming of sex with younger men while living the life society deems is the normal life to live. Had he come to terms with his sexuality at a younger age he could have lived a comfortable life with a youthful partner before he reached his current age. All too often gay men who wait till late in life to come to terms with their sexuality wish to relieve their youth all over again in the life they should have lived to begin with.
It's important that members of the LGBT community take the lead in educating Americans on the facts about pedophilia and child molesters and dispelling the myths that there is a connection between homosexuality and these heinous acts. Otherwise the agenda of equality and opportunity will continue to be a distant achievement to reach as extremists will frame the debate on their terms, not ours.
Post from Campus Progress Blog:
Foley Sets Equal Rights for LGBT Americans Back Years
By ToddHill - Oct 4th, 2006 at 11:41 am EDT
As disgusting as former Congressman Mark Foley's actions were, and no matter how many people voice outrage at his actions, one fact is quite clear: Foley has set equal rights and opportunities way back for gay Americans.
I knew the very minute this scandal broke that our political opponents on the Right, including the Moral soldiers of the Christian extremists, would be pointing to this scenario as the very reason homosexuals should be condemned in our society, and how gays can't be trusted to be around children because they will prey on them like a spider prey's on a trapped fly. According to Texas Women's University around 95% of all child molesters are heterosexual, not homosexual. The claims by some that the majority of child predators are homosexuals are simply, and unequivocally not true. I challenge my fellow members of the LGBT community to stand up and denounce such unfounded comparisons in order to salvage efforts towards equality and opportunity.
I'm gay, and was molested as a child. The last thing I have a desire to do is to rob the innocence of another child, especially one of the same gender as me, and the same goes for most homosexuals who might also have been molested. Being molested plays no role in someone becoming, or being, homosexual. I know for a fact that thousands of Americans are molested today, and equal amounts, if not more, in years past. A large percentage of those individuals have no desire to turn around and rob the innocence of another child much like they were at such a young, and vulnerable age. The reason men and women molest children is because they are easy prey. They are easy to manipulate, control, terrorize, threaten, and take advantage of; it is the very cycle of nature at work. They rob them of their innocence and this action has no limitations in of it. It's the same reason it is so easy for a bully to pick on someone smaller then them instead of picking on someone their own size. Or the very reason larger animals that desire food will attack the smallest or weakest link of a herd in order to best yield themselves food to eat.
It is incredibly important to understand the difference between molestation and pedophilia, which often get blurred during such spats of hateful rhetoric towards gay America. Pedophiles are males or females with sexual thoughts or desires for younger, even pre-pubescent children. A pedophile may have the desire for sex with a child, but never act on it. A child-molester has the same desires but actually, physically acts upon them.
Here are the facts as we know them today. Foley claims to have been molested as a child, was a closeted homosexual, preyed on young teenaged boys, and now blames alcoholism for all his problems. Mark Foley's main problem was the fact he hid who he truly was, which resulted in him sneaking around like a cat at night, and now forces his lawyer to tell the world he was gay when everyone already knew that, and attempts to divulge sorrow from the masses because he was molested. As if that is supposed to give him a free pass for his disgusting actions. Foley was a pedophile, not a child-molester, and his preference was for young male-to-old male sexual molestation in his mind. Homosexuality and molestation are not one in the same, they are polar opposites. Religious extremists have now seized this story as their moral mission to once again piñata the LGBT community for even existing, instead of fully investigating the ranks of their own clergy who so often physically molest young men and women in communities across the United States. The Roman Catholic sex abuse cases are the most recent example of this, including allegations the current Pope Benedict XVI was involved in the cover up. The fact is that Mark Foley waited too late in his life to come to terms with his sexuality, and because he did so he acted upon his homosexual tendencies by dreaming of sex with younger men while living the life society deems is the normal life to live. Had he come to terms with his sexuality at a younger age he could have lived a comfortable life with a youthful partner before he reached his current age. All too often gay men who wait till late in life to come to terms with their sexuality wish to relieve their youth all over again in the life they should have lived to begin with.
It's important that members of the LGBT community take the lead in educating Americans on the facts about pedophilia and child molesters and dispelling the myths that there is a connection between homosexuality and these heinous acts. Otherwise the agenda of equality and opportunity will continue to be a distant achievement to reach as extremists will frame the debate on their terms, not ours.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
