State Rep. Phil Hinkle , R-Indianapolis, is in a rather curious position. He admits that he paid a young man $80 to come to his hotel room for a good time but insists that he is neither gay nor guilty of any criminal act. He has refused to resign after being stripped of his committee chairmanships. Hinkle is viewed as an anti-homosexual legislator and has been outspoken in his opposition to same-sex marriage.
Hinkle admits that he contacted Kameryn Gibson, 18, through Craigslist to join him in Room 2610 at the JW Marriott hotel. He admits that he picked him up in his car and took him to the hotel after paying him.
Gibson says that when he tried to leave the room, Hinkle identified himself as a legislator and would not let him leave. He alleges that Hinkle then gave him and his sister $100, an iPad, and a Blackberry to keep quiet. He says that Hinkle exposed himself and became threatening to keep him in the room. Both Hinkle and Gibson agree money exchanged hands but that they never had sex.
The speaker and other leaders have called for Hinkle to resign.
Hinkle does admit that “I was on the road to self-destruction and I don’t know why.” Nevertheless, he insists that his actions were “stupid, but not illegal” and “I say that emphatically, I’m not gay.” Both Hinkle and Kameryn Gibson say that money exchanged hands but that neither engaged in a sex act.
Hinkle says that Gibson disappeared with this property and that when Hinkle spoke with his sister, she tried to extort money. What I find quite astonishing is that Hinkle then had his daughter meet with Megan Gibson and retrieve his BlackBerry as well as his business card holder and state identification.
Among the legislative achievements that Hinkle puts on his website is his critical role in producing the state’s “In God We Trust” license plates. He also serves on the Board of Directors for the Greater Indianapolis YMCA.
Now, here’s the interesting twist. Both parties admit that there was no sex but was this solicitation? It sounds like solicitation to me, though it never resulted in any actual prostitution.
Here is the Indiana code:
Patronizing a prostitute
Sec. 3. A person who knowingly or intentionally pays, or offers or agrees to pay, money or other property to another person:
(1) for having engaged in, or on the understanding that the other
person will engage in, sexual intercourse or deviate sexual conduct with the person or with any other person; or
(2) for having fondled, or on the understanding that the other person will fondle, the genitals of the person or any other person;
commits patronizing a prostitute, a Class A misdemeanor. However, the offense is a Class D felony if the person has two (2) prior convictions under this section.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.5. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.78; Acts 1979, P.L.301, SEC.2; P.L.310-1983, SEC.4.
Hinkle says they just talked sports and the view from the hotel. The young man insists the conversation was a bit more than sports. Even if one accepts Hinkle’s account on the property, should a legislator still resign in such a circumstance?
Source: Indy Star