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.
How exhausting life must be when one is always the victim of those vast “lib” conspiracies whose only goal is to destroy America.
Paul, your example was anything but logical.
Davidm2525, your comment that the only commonality is lust and pleasure reflects a refusal to recognize the values of the relationships you insult. Just like marriages between men and women, some same sex marriages involve little more than lust and pleasure. Just like marriages between men and women, most same sex marriages involve vows and commitment, duties and privileges, caring and strengthening family bonds, raising children, caring for elderly parents and spouses, going to church, helping community organizations, and all the other activities that make up daily life for most of us.
Richard wrote: “your comment that the only commonality is lust and pleasure reflects a refusal to recognize the values of the relationships you insult.”
No, you miss the point. Marriage defines a unique institution of gender opposite couples who have sexual relations for the purpose of creating children and a family unit. Nobody is against same sex couples having strong, loving relationships. It is pretending that it is marriage, for the purposes of legitimizing their sexual relations, that is the problem.
In California, domestic partnerships granted them all the legal rights and privileges that marriage did, but that did not stop them from going after marriage. They are destroying the institution of marriage, and people blindly allow it like lemmings running off a cliff.
If a legislator is a pedophile yet continues to say that homosexuality is a sin and works to deny homosexuals the right that other adults who are not related have, then they are weirdo’s, sinners, hypocrites, criminal and need to be outed and sent to jail.
PR, A read of this thread shows I only brought up the past when someone waxed poetic about it. I will not allow anyone to rewrite history.
Nick,
“I can point out some of the old posts that were mean, nasty, uncivil and cruel.” Please stop bringing up the status of the site in the past. Let it go. This is not taking the high road…
The equating of pedophilia with homosexuality is old and tired and most people are able to perceive this.
Inga – you made a statement and I took it to a logical extension. There is no equating going on. Just answer the question. Stop deflecting, only liberals who have no good answers deflect.
It is inferior because it’s different? Childbearing isn’t the sole purpose of marriage.
Detroit, Those archives are a real problem for revisionists like yourself. Prudent of you to back off on your false assertion.
Nick,
I politely decline the opportunity to debate the blackness of the kettle with the pot.
Point of clarification please.
Is this law that is being overturned by a judge one that was voted on by the people of the State of Alabama? In California, we often have referendums or laws that everyone votes on or is this a law that was proposed by some legislators and passed through their House/Senate process?
Dust Bunny Queen wrote: “Is this law that is being overturned by a judge one that was voted on by the people of the State of Alabama? … or is this a law that was proposed by some legislators and passed through their House/Senate process?”
Both. In Alabama, a Constitutional Amendment must be voted upon by the people if the legislature does not have a unanimous vote for it. This law was passed by both houses of the legislature in 1998 as the Alabama Marriage Protection Act. The Constitutional Amendment was voted upon by the people of Alabama in 2006. So this judge overturned both the will of the State legislature, and the will of the people of Alabama.
The problem is that these judges do not read their case law closely. This Judge, Callie V.S. Granade (Ginny Granade), does the same thing. She quotes cases like Loving as indicating marriage as a fundamental right requiring strict scrutiny, but she does not acknowledge that these cases tied marriage to procreation. They defined marriage as opposite sex marriage because same sex marriage was unheard of when these cases were decided. But then she goes on to argue from her superficial understanding, conflating same sex unions as being equivalent in function and purpose to opposite sex unions. The end result will be the destruction of opposite sex marriage and a new definition of family that will accelerate the disintegration of civil society. Instead of working with nature, laws will be based upon whoever is in power, and respect for authority and the law will deteriorate.
Same sex marriage is inferior to opposite sex marriage because it is different. It does not involve the same goals of reproduction, creating a family unit through the creation of children and raising those children. Same sex marriage also creates the false notion that adoption of children is equivalent and identical to having biological children. Same sex marriage is in fact not marriage at all, and to label it marriage simply confuses the biological truth of the matter. It is a case of positive law being contrary to natural law, so it will lead to more civil unrest the longer we attempt to embrace it as a society.
Following is a link to her decision:
http://media.al.com/news_mobile_impact/other/Searcy%20ruling.pdf
Detroit, I can point out some of the old posts that were mean, nasty, uncivil and cruel. Thank God those intolerant and hateful people are gone. This is a much more balanced and tolerant forum for ALL views, not just far left like it was, JT went through hell cleaning this place up, and we are happy he did. Much more welcoming of ALL viewpoints.
A shrink abiding making people paranoid is malpractice and unconscionable.
Kevin Schmidt wrote: “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.”
Kevin, it’s just 3 verses down from the prescription for adultery, right in there in the middle of beastiality, incest, etc.
And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
(Lev 20:10)
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
(Lev 20:13)
These kind of tactics just disgust people on the fence on this issue, it does not win them over.
We had a homosexual US Senator, Herb Kohl who never came out of the closet. He used to own the Milwaukee Bucks and liked to cruise the locker room. Finally, the team prez told him it was a big distraction, so he stopped. He has since sold the team.
This is why the struggle for equality is going to be a long one. It is because some groups still believe they are justified in denying another particular group’s rights because “they deserve to lose it because of X”
There is the legislative process and the court process, not going out and depriving others of their liberty to accomplish a goal.
Darren Smith wrote: “This is why the struggle for equality is going to be a long one.”
Gay rights is not about equality and never has been. It is a facade that distracts from the real issue at hand, and that is whether same sex unions are identical and equal to opposite sex unions. Even a casual observation proves they are not, because the biological equipment and organs and the effects of using them are different. The only commonality is lust and pleasure, which government has no business regulating or protecting.
What has happened is that gay activists have beat the drum of this lie for so long, that people who don’t care or don’t study the issue in depth just say, “okay, enough already, give them equal rights” just to get them off their back. But it never satiates them. They are always going to push for more and more, because that is the characterization of lust. There is an image in the Bible about them coming for the men visiting Lot living in Sodom. That image gets to the heart of the matter.
If this were really an equal scenario that she is upset about, these Congressmen would be pushing for legislation to get anti-discrimination policies in place for men and women who commit adultery. They would have a pro-adultery agenda just like gay people have a pro-gay agenda. They would organize adultery pride parades just like the gay activists organize gay pride parades. None of them do that, so it is not even close to the same thing.
Hillary better be looking over both her shoulders, and her increasingly large, lard ass.
This site continues its long, slow spiral into hate and intolerance. Sad, really. The comments used to be such an enlightened place.
It’s as if they are saying “I deserve my right to sin in privacy and the law gives me that right. However, I don’t like your sexual orientation, so I won’t give you the right to legally marry, because that is sin. My sin is less sinful than yours.”
Inga – so, if my sexual orientation is that I like 8 year old girls, I should be able to marry any 8 year old I want (since same-sex marriage is on the table, too)?
Paul C. Schulte wrote: “if my sexual orientation is that I like 8 year old girls, I should be able to marry any 8 year old I want (since same-sex marriage is on the table, too)?”
Exactly logical, but don’t expect others to understand the reasoning here. When it suits their FEELINGS, they will find all kinds of differences with sexual orientations that they still FEEL are wrong. Amazing how the equality argument only works for their pet causes.