The George Rekers escort scandal goes on and on

The George Rekers escort scandal continues get more and more bizarre.

The Miami New Times, the publication which broke the story, published an interview with "Lucien," the young man who was Rekers's "travel assistant." Amongst other things, he said Rekers paid him to give him body rubs in the nude during the 10 day European vacation:

Rekers allegedly named his favorite maneuver the "long stroke" -- a complicated caress "across his penis, thigh... and his anus over the butt cheeks," as the escort puts it. "Rekers liked to be rubbed down there," he says.

In his first interview since New Times broke the story Tuesday, the 20-year-old escort, who prefers to go by the name Lucien, contradicts Rekers's contentions that he hired the escort to help carry his luggage and that he was trying to save the soul of a lost sinner.

Although Rekers does have physical ailments that make it difficult for him to haul suitcases, Lucien wasn't hired to carry luggage on their European vacation, the escort says.

"Lucien" also said that he is coming forward because "It's a situation where he's (Rekers) going against homosexuality when he is a homosexual,"

Rekers has refused to comment to the Times, but in an email written to Steve Rothaus, a blogger at the Miami Herald newspaper, Rekers said he is not gay. He also threatened a lawsuit.

And then the email got very strange. Read it for yourself:

My travel assistant called me this afternoon earnestly asking me to clarify on my website that he worked for me as a travel companion and not as a prostitute. I completely agreed with my travel assistant that it is absolutely true that I hired him and he worked for me as a travel companion and not as a prostitute. I also read to him the first sentence that has been posted on my website for several days that says, “A recent article in an alternative newspaper cleverly gave false impressions of inappropriate behavior because of its misleading innuendo, incorrectly implying that Professor George Rekers used the Rentboy website to hire a prostitute to accompany him on a recent trip.”

Two days ago a professor friend of mine recommended that I ask my travel assistant to send me an email saying what happened on the trip so I could post a statement on what we agreed on. When I called my travel assistant to ask if he would write a statement to me, h asked me to send him questions to remind him of what topics about our trip he should write to me about, which I did on May 4.

Here are the four questions that I sent my travel assistant at his request two days ago, together with the answers we agreed on in our phone conversation this afternoon:

1. Did Dr. Rekers in fact hire you to lift my luggage when necessary as a travel assistant during the trip, because I cannot do so myself since I had surgery?
Together we agreed that I in fact hired him to lift luggage when necessary as a travel assistant during the trip, because I cannot do so himself since having surgery. We agreed that this is what my travel assistant agreed to do for pay prior to taking the trip.

2. Did you in fact lift my luggage during the trip each time it was necessary, or did Dr Rekers lift his own luggage during the trip?
 We agreed that my travel assistant did in fact lift my luggage each time it was necessary, that I did not lift my luggage, and my travel assistant did all the lifting.

3. Did Dr. Rekers hire you as a prostitute for the trip?
We agreed that I hired him as a companion and to help with luggage, and that I did not hire him as a prostitute for any sexual purpose.

4. Did Dr. Rekers spend time explaining how the Christian faith is based in love to you during the trip?
We agreed that I explained the Christian faith to my travel assistant in conversations on several days during the trip.

So far, no one has stepped up to defend Rekers except for some comments on the far right site Free Republic:

Anti-gay bloggers at conservative chat site FreeRepublic.com, where GLBT news of all sorts is routinely discussed at length, were less circumspect, with some posts accusing the "liberals" of trying to set Rekers up for a smear campaign and others alleging that Rekers, as an "ex-gay," might be relapsing.

The Family Research Council, the organization he helped to found, gave a tepid response to the controversy, claiming not to have had contact with Rekers in over a decade.

NARTH (National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality), the organization of which Rekers is a board member, said the following:

The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) is a professional scientific organization with hundreds of academic, research, and clinical members dedicated to assisting individuals dealing with unwanted homosexual attractions. While NARTH is focused on the science of homosexual attraction, personal controversies often deepen the existing cultural divide on this issue. Such is the case in the recent news stories concerning one of our members, Dr. George Rekers.

NARTH takes seriously the accusations that have been made,and we are currently attempting to understand the details behind these press reports. We are always saddened when this type of controversy impacts the lives of individuals, and we urge all parties to allow a respectful and thorough investigation to take place.

At this difficult time for the families and individuals involved, we extend our sympathies. We also wish to reiterate our traditional position that these personal controversies do not change the scientific data, nor do they detract from the important work of NARTH.

NARTH continues to support scientific research, and to value client atonomy, client self-determination and client diversity.

Peter LaBarbera's pitiful attack on the Southern Poverty Law Center

While George "daddy longstroke" Rekers continues to be hit by the hubris bus, our friend, Peter LaBarbera has renewed his attacks on the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Ever since the SPLC declared his Americans for Truth web site to be a hate site, LaBarbera has been scrambling to destroy SPLC's credibility.

And he thinks he found something.

In 2005, the organization mistaked him for discredited researcher Paul Cameron in its Intelligence Report, saying that it was he who was denounced by the American Psychological Association. So now, LaBarbera has jumped on this as sort of proof that the organization isn't credible. However in his glee, a few things escaped LaBarbera.

While it is true that he is not Paul Cameron and was never denounced by the American Psychological Association, he never says why he would cite someone who was denounced by the American Psychological Association, which is the main reason why the Americans for Truth web site was cited as a hate site.

What Peter does is offer a ridiculous defense of Cameron:

It should be noted that the confusion of two conservative, pro-family advocates is only the most blatant error found in the SPLC documents. We will let Paul Cameron and his Family Research Institute provide a full correction of the SPLC’s misinformation about him (see this FRI post on the APA expulsion claim).

That link is nothing more than Cameron relating a story of how he convinced doctoral dissertation candidates into believing that he was not expelled from the American Psychological Association or the American Sociological Association for distorting research.

And believe it or not, he is right.

Cameron was expelled from the American Psychological Association for not cooperating with the Committee of Scientific and Professional Ethics and Conduct when the committee was investigating claims by fellow researchers that Cameron was distorting their work. See the letter from the American Psychological Association here

And as for the American Sociological Association:

 In 1985, the American Sociological Association (ASA) adopted a resolution which asserted that "Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism" and noted that "Dr. Paul Cameron has repeatedly campaigned for the abrogation of the civil rights of lesbians and gay men, substantiating his call on the basis of his distorted interpretation of this research." The resolution formally charged an ASA committee with the task of "critically evaluating and publicly responding to the work of Dr. Paul Cameron."

At its August, 1986 meeting, the ASA officially accepted the committee's report and passed the following resolution:

The American Sociological Association officially and publicly states that Paul Cameron is not a sociologist, and condemns his consistent misrepresentation of sociological research. Information on this action and a copy of the report by the Committee on the Status of Homosexuals in Sociology, "The Paul Cameron Case," is to be published in Footnotes, and be sent to the officers of all regional and state sociological associations and to the Canadian Sociological Association with a request that they alert their members to Cameron's frequent lecture and media appearances."

Nice try, Peter and Paul.

Then LaBarbera tries to nitpick with SPLC over his behavior at several junctures:

• The Lambda Report on Homosexual Activism, the precursor and flagship print publication of Americans For Truth, was not “inflammatory” but reported using firsthand information gathered from homosexual activist groups and “gay” events. Besides, the SPLC, with its reckless and preposterous linkage of demented, racist fringe groups like the KKK to mainstream pro-family conservative groups such as AFTAH and pro-Constitution Tea Partiers — all under the rubric of alleged “hate” — is in no place to lecture anyone about being “inflammatory”;
• LaBarbera was never a member of the American Psychological Association and is not a scientist, hence he was never expelled; here the SPLC mistakes him with Cameron [Editor's Note: for years the Left has distorted the facts surrounding Cameron's association with the APA; see this PhD dissertation apology to Cameron] (Alvin - I covered this already.)
• LaBarbera’s work has not been “denounced by the American Psychological Association”; again, here the SPLC writer, relying on the 2005 erroneous SPLC report, mistakes LaBarbera for Cameron.
• At the 2006 Vision America conference in question, “The War on Christians,” LaBarbera did not call homosexuality “disgusting” but referred to specific homosexual acts and their unhealthy consequences as such. He continues to believe that shame, not pride, should be associated with all homosexual conduct because it is immoral.
• At the same Vision America conference, LaBarbera did not call for the closing of all homosexual “establishments,” but for shutting down homosexual sex clubs and bathhouses as public health hazards. These sex businesses — which helped AIDS explode nationally in the eighties — facilitate anonymous homosexual sexual encounters and hyper-promiscuity, which spreads disease and harms both men who have sex with men and and the women who are in relationships with these men. (The latter often are unaware of their partners’ secret promiscuity.)

AFTAH repeats its challenge to Mark Potok, Southern Poverty Law Center’s director, to a public “Debate on Hate” regarding the SPLC’s politically-motivated “hate” designations.

Peter seems to have jumped on an error by SPLC and is trying to pump it up into something huge, but when one looks at exactly what he is saying, it is nothing there but a pitiful man still smarting over being called out over his lies.

But instead of jumping on Potok, how about challenging me, Peter. I listed 10 reasons why your web site is a hate site. What do you have to say about these:

1. Smearing gays via a CDC report on an increase on HIV while intentionally downplaying the part of the report which clearly places the blame on this increase on homophobia (while at the same time implying that the report "dispels the homophobia causes AIDS propaganda")

2.   Defending a bill which would lead to the imprisonment and possible genocide of Ugandans simply for being gay or lesbian.

. 3. Going to subcultural leather events and using the "racy" behavior of gays attending to stigmatize the entire lgbt community while ignoring the behavior of heterosexuals at the same events.

4 . Making ugly comments about a "transgender quota" in the Obama Administration simply because the president appoints a (very, very qualified) transgendered woman to an office in his administration.

5. Instigating a  highly inappropriate comment about gays, lesbians, and sexual intercourse; a comment so ugly that it led to a feud between three religious right groups.

6. Continuously citing the work of the discredited researcher Paul Cameron, even when made aware of his dubious history of getting kicked out of medical groups, censures and rebukes.

7. Aiding and abetting Conservapedia spread lies about gay health using the fictional term "gay bowel syndrome."

8. Freely admitting to errors when it comes to claims against the gay and lesbian community but not taking responsibility for them.

9. Falsely accusing the Democratic National Convention and the Gay and Lesbian Task Force of putting on a sadomasochistic event.

10. Attempting to imply that a staph infection was the new HIV and then lying about his implications when caught.


I await your answer, but I know it will never come.

.

George Rekers's escort details encounters and other briefs from the rentboy scandal

The following are a bunch of clips from various sites regarding the George Rekers "rentboy" scandal:

George Rekers Is a Homosexual, Says Escort - The escort, "Lucien," is now talking and what he says . . . wow!!

JMG Readers Shut Down Florida AG Bill McCollum's Facebook Campaign Page - What does this have to do with Rekers? He was responsible for the $87,000 Rekers and his colleague received to defend Florida's anti-gay adoption law in court.

Ironically, 'American Public Life' is what's now biting Rekers in the arse - George Rekers's connection to the National Organization for Marriage's Maggie Gallagher.

NARTH In The Harsh Spotlight After Rekers Caught With Male Hooker - A serious look at NARTH, the organization which includes Rekers as a founder.

President of ex-gay group stretches truth in letter to Washington Post

Apparently there is a small controversy brewing in Washington, D.C.

The mayor there, Adrien M. Fenty, accidentally gave an award of appreciation to the former president of the ex-gay group PFOX, Regina Griggs.

After a lot of outcry, Fenty said the award was given by accident.

Naturally, the "professional ex-gays" are crying foul, such as the now president of PFOX, Greg Quinlan. In a letter to the Washington Post, he said:

Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) should not apologize for recognizing Regina Griggs, executive director of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX) and a family advocate who has been instrumental in ensuring civil rights to all D.C. residents.

The lawsuit filed last year by PFOX against the D.C. Office of Human Rights resulted in ex-gay men and lesbians being recognized as a protected class under the District's Human Rights Act. The office had refused to extend D.C.'s sexual orientation nondiscrimination law to former homosexuals. But the court held that the Human Rights Act does not require immutable characteristics for sexual orientation status, so ex-gay men and lesbians are entitled to the same legal protections that gays enjoy.

But like so many things Quinlan has said in the past (such as when he distorted the words of Dr. Francis Collins), this is a serious stretching of the truth.

The law suit happened because PFOX sued the NEA for denying it an exhibit booth at the groups's national convention in 2002 and PFOX actually lost this case.

According to the web site Box Turtle Bulletin:

PFOX sued in the District of Columbia under the District’s very inclusive Human Rights Act claiming discrimination against ex-gays. On May 24, 2005, the Office of Human Rights issued stated that PFOX had no probable cause because ex-gays are not members of a protected class under the HRA based on the plain language of the statute and even if PFOX was part of a protected class, NEA rejected PFOX’s application for non-discriminatory reasons.

PFOX appealed in federal court and on June 26, 2009, Federal Judge Maurice Ross issued his opinion.

The basis for OHR’s finding that ex-gays are not protected was that because PFOX denies that orientation is immutable, therefore they by definition were not discriminated against due to an immutable characteristic. In other words, those who believe orientation to be innate are protected by non-discrimination laws while those who believe it is transitory are not.

While that is an amusing and ironic position, it didn’t fly with the judge. Because the case was tried under D.C.’s HRA, there is no requirement for immutable characteristics.

Indeed, the HRA lists numerous protected categories such as religion, personal appearance, familial status, and source of income, which are subject to change. The HRA’s purpose is “to secure an end in the District of Columbia to discrimination for any reason other than that of individual merit….”

Furthermore, according to Box Turtle Bulletin:

. . . most importantly, the judge found that it is perfectly reasonable for the NEA to exclude PFOX. Because the NEA did not exclude them for being ex-gay, but rather because they have a disruptive political agenda that is contrary to that of the NEA.

The NEA did not reject its application because PFOX’s members include exgays, homosexuals, heterosexuals, or members of any other sexual orientation. Rather, NEA rejected PFOX’s application because PFOX’s message and policies were, in NEA’s opinion, contrary to NEA’s policies regarding sexual orientation.

Jeremy Hooper of Goodasyou.org broke it down like this and I agree with his assessment:

The court in NO WAY said that "ex-gay" classification is anything right, valid, scientific or rhetorically sound, or in any way deserved of every last right specific classification that LGBTS people receive -- especially since, of course, "ex-gay" people ALL fall into one of those scientifically recognized categories (or asexuality, alternately)! The court in no way denied that PFOX's mission is hostile to others. And of course the court in no way said that PFOX is deserved of any kind of honor, especially from a city that so richly values respect -- something that PFOX (whose spokesman recently tagged the awesome and peaceful PFLAG organization as a "hate group") refuses to show you to happy, healthy LGBT people and the credible, peer-reviewed information that supports them!

Conversion Therapy - a video with George Rekers in mind

From the folks at InfoMania, a look at "conversion therapy." And I dedicate this video to George Rekers, a proponent of this belief that gays can change their orientation:



Past infoMania posts:

Advice to closeted politicans - How to keep from being exposed

Why the phrase 'No Homo' is highly needed

Reasons why the 'sanctity' of proms MUST be preserved from Constance McMillen

Why gay marriage is 'wrong'