Alabama’s first openly gay state legislator, State Rep. Patricia Todd has created a stir this week by declaring that she intends to publicly reveal the adulterous affairs of colleagues who oppose same-sex marriage on the basis of family values. The threat raises the prospect of potential tort liability and some interesting questions of privilege.
The confrontation occurred after a court struck down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage last Friday. Alabama Speaker of the House Mike Hubbard and Attorney General Luther Strange reacted by denouncing the decisions and calling for a stay of the judge’s order. Hubbard called the ruling “outrageous when a single unelected and unaccountable federal judge can overturn the will of millions of Alabamians” and pledged to “continue defending the Christian conservative values that make Alabama a special place to live.” Strange filed a motion over the weekend seeking a stay of the judge’s ruling.
Todd, D-Birmingham, shot back on Facebook that she was preparing to out adulterous colleagues who argue against the lifting of the ban:
“This (is) a time where you find out who are accepting, loving people. To say I am disappointed in Speaker Hubbard comment’s and Attorney General Strange choice to appeal the decision is an understatement. I will not stand by and allow legislators to talk about ‘family values’ when they have affairs, and I know of many who are and have. I will call our elected officials who want to hide in the closet OUT.”
Todd told the media that her threat is real: “Don’t start throwing bricks at my window when yours is already cracked as well.” I am not sure of what the line will be for Todd in releasing information. It is not clear whether just defending the ban is enough or mentioning family values would be the trigger for an outing.
For his part, Hubbard was conciliatory in response and said “I consider Rep. Todd a friend, and we have always enjoyed a good and cordial relationship, so I am sorry that she is upset about my remarks. We do have a fundamental disagreement on allowing same sex marriages in Alabama, and I will continue to voice my opinion on this important social issue, just as I expect she will continue to voice hers, but we can disagree without being disagreeable.”
If Todd is serious, she had better to take care where she carried through on this threat. There is an absolute legislative privilege afforded to federal and state legislative officials in making defamatory statements while on the floor of the legislatures or in committee sessions. See Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367 (1951). However, outside of that protected forum, including repeating such statements in the media, can be actionable. In those forums, she had better be right. Adultery has been traditionally treated as a per se category of defamation (with some things as imputing a “loathsome” disease). As such, the plaintiffs generally does not have to prove special damages and the statement is viewed as per se damaging. Of course, truth remains the primary defense to defamation.
Max, exactly my point, whose rights trump another’s? Maybe that’s a lesson these bigots in the Lefislature need to learn.
Of course it is overt blackmail, which is a metaphor for what the hypocritical homophobes in Alabama’s legislature are doing to the Alabama gay population.
There’s plenty of guidance in the Bible as to what punishments befit adulterers. I still haven’t found any punishments for gays anywhere in the Bible.
She should expose them whether or not they go along with her gay agenda.
Max-1
It does not mean that LGBT people have to give up anything and they have a civil right to privacy and to marry whom they chose. But declaring that others should lose their right to privacy so that another group could have theirs is counter to equal protection and equal privacy.
There are those who believe in a particular issue such as free speech sometimes declare that opponents should not be allowed to have a say in the discussion.
Moreover,
I take great exception to any politician going around making statements about other citizens’ sexual lives and privacy. If this is one example of Representative Todd’s approach to those who disagree with her what is to say she would not also threaten ordinary citizens’ private affairs when she disagrees with their politics.
As for personal integrity issues, I would not vote for any politician who cheated on their spouse because to me it is a sign they are corruptible and lack such integrity. But I object to some sneaking around prying into bedroom lives to rustle up dirt. Because if it is Senator X who gets “outed” by politicians it will just be a matter of time before Citizen Y suffers the same invasion.
Darren
Does that equal protection under the law mean that LGBT should mind their business and let the homophobes decide who can and can not get married?
Annie
What I do and whom I love is NEVER respected as private because for most of my life it’s been made illegal by these “private” bigots who have affairs privately so that their public family values aren’t sullied by their private business… That’s how corruption works.
Max-1 – it takes all the fun out of it when you have a “public” affair. 😉
Inga, the constitution says so. All persons are to be afforded equal protection of the law. By your position that “adulterer hypocrites” do not deserve the right to their sexual privacy is an antithesis to equal protection because it is based upon their political position or the tenants of their religious beliefs that are conservative in nature.
In juxtaposition of this is that gay people should be allowed to marry because the government has no right to invade their sexual privacy.
So in your words the adulterer hypocrites are free to lose their privacy but gay people can be allowed to marry because they have a right to privacy. It is a disingenuous position.
Both sides have their right to privacy. But often these are clouded by goals of others as to how selectively these are held.
Obviously Todd doesn’t have the courage and conviction that same sex marriage can stand on it’s own merits. That’s why she has to revert to threats. Typical “Sky is Falling” Democrat.
So the question is, is this what she was elected for? The people are really getting their monies worth
So the right to privacy by the adulterer hypocrites are more important than the right to legal marriage by gay people? Who says so?
Let’s look at this from another angle.
If another state representative went to the floor of the House and threatened to expose any other legislator who he accused of having adulterous relationships would that senator be struck for what he said? Or would it be a matter of what political party they belonged to or what their family status would be?
So essentially what is being proffered here by some supporting Representative Todd is that she is permitted to make accusations against other representative’s sex lives because she belongs to a particular sexual identity and therefore is justified in doing so against those she declares to be guilty of sexual wrongdoing.
Moreover, we can extend this to privacy as I mentioned before. Privacy is to be afforded to people’s sexuality as long as those persons believe in gay marriage. If they are against gay marriage then they have no right to privacy. That is what is being argued here.
Most of this discussion, as well as the original post, misses the main point, which is psychological, not legal. If this little warning causes those legislators who lead double lives to keep looking over their shoulders, then she will have accomplished her purpose. Sometimes a little paranoia will cause some folks to straighten up and do the right thing. Others? Not so much.
Chuck – doing the right thing is in the eye of the beholder. Extorting someone to vote your way I think is illegal.
And a politician having an affair is no more of a surprise than an actor or athlete doing so. Sad, but hardly a surprise.
This is blackmail, pure and simple. The best way to defang that threat is to release the damning revelation yourself.
What if she threatened to put those living in the closet who are having gay affairs? Would there be a double standard?
It is unfortunate that people will get so nasty with those who don’t toe the party line. This is the US, and we are all allowed to have different opinions. Since none of us is Jesus Christ, then it is literally impossible to find a sinless Christian.
When a Chick-fil-a manager was caught on camera giving a homeless man lunch and his own gloves, actions that are typical for him, there was a backlash because the owner of the company opposes gay marriage. A backlash against an act of kindness done out of intolerance for other opinions.
I do support gay marriage, but I also support everyone’s right to their own values and opinions.
Chip – excellent point. With this threat legislators will not be allowed to ‘evolve’.
Inga – you do realize that none of what you say logically fits together? She has every right to be an adulterer, too. No one is stopping her.
What’s the wife of a previously anti-gay-marriage legislator gonna think if her husband now votes for it?
Now that is something a Gay or Lesbian in the Legislature that is not in the closet. There were a few in the closet and even an Alabama Attorney General who went to college in Louisiana. As reported by a well known company.
Do you know why there are so many men prisons in Alabama?
It is because the laws of Alabama was gender and some are gender set against men.
Sodomy laws for a long time only applied to men having sex with other men or an unmarried person.
Look this up Ala Code 1975 § 6-5-170 as an example: Which states: Section 6-5-170 Definition.
False imprisonment consists in the unlawful detention of the person of another for any length of time whereby he is deprived of his personal liberty.
(Code 1907, §4238; Code 1923, §7967; Code 1940, T. 7, §962.)
Notice it says he with no she.
Rape and sex cases use to say the very same thing. So, Only a many could be held responsible for a sex crime.
So look at the gay factor in Alabama it is taught to children in school that you are a criminal if you are gay, but at the same time it was okay for teachers and preacher to have sex with kids. Still practice as demonstrated in a recent case involving a teacher and her husband who is a policeman. But look at a 2000 report filed with the news and their name and what they were doing is in that report. The reason it washed under the covers was because who else was involved in it.
Open male gays would be hunted down and stopped if they practiced like the ones who harmed the children. The only difference was only the law was set up against gay people intentional more towards the male population.
Straight men love to watch lesbians get it on as I heard growing up in Alabama. The fact they use to publish the books and magazines in Alabama that were published up to the late 1970s.