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.
DBQ,
Those people are throwbacks to a time when schizophrenics, epileptics and cerebral palsy victims were judged as having done something wrong, or their mother’s were blamed. Same as nowadays with the retrogressive who say it’s the fault of the parent’s early childcare if their child was autistic, or even gay. We have modern medicine and technology at our fingertips. Time to live in the 21st century.
IF our society makes it legal to abuse children, then we are all in huge trouble and we should just just blow ourselves up.
We are in 100% agreement. However, you have to recognize that there are many (not me) who feel the same way about homosexual marriage.
You don’t have to agree with them. But you cannot be blind to the fact that there are people who think differently than you do and who find somethings just as abhorrent as you (and I) do in abusing children. If you blind yourself to your opponent’s arguments, you will lose.
It used to be accepted to sell men, women AND children into slavery and into sexual slavery as well. Yes. Even children. Used to and thanks to over half a million Americans fighting and dieing….slavery …in THIS country….is illegal.
Society is not static and doesn’t always change for the good. People need to recognize this fact and be aware that what we change today can have wider ramifications down the road.
IF our society makes it legal to abuse children, then we are all in huge trouble and we should just just blow ourselves up. Societal changes should improve the human condition, not destroy it. How some adult loves his/ her consenting partner is not society’s place to control, nor should it deny them the same equal rights as any American has.
Thank Allah that someone finally recognizes the necessity of Sharia Law.
Adults having sex with children who cannot give consent is the big in your face difference. Homosexuality occurs generally with consenting adults, JUST LIKE heterosexuality. In the past homosexuality was misunderstood and mislabeled. Again, adults consent, children do not.
Inga – you have truly lost the thread of this conversation.
Paul C. Schulte: “Inga – you made a statement and I took it to a logical extension.”
It’s equally a “logical extension” to heterosexual marriage between consenting adults too. That is, it isn’t “logical” at all.
Fooling themselves. Not WITH themselves /facepalm
Sure, Paul. It wasn’t an idiotic analogy. It was all about reason, logic and genuine befuddlement.
So let’s not deflect and give you a straight answer to your question: No, Paul. You can’t marry an eight year old.
Sorry to break the news.
fiver – you have to follow the thread and start with Inga’s first statement. Then the rest should make sense.
Pedophilia is illegal, homosexuality is legal.
Those are true statements at THIS moment in time for THIS country.
Pedophilia, the act of having sex with children, is illegal…..now. Homosexuality, the act of having sex with the same sex as you, used to be illegal and is not illegal now.
It is the acts that were/are illegal. To assume that society will not change either positively or negatively (depending on your view of the change) is naive to say the least.
What is illegal in THIS country now, sex with children, marriage to children, may not always be illegal.
When people agitate for change in societies morals without understanding that there can be further ramifications that they don’t intend, they are fooling with themselves.
Paul C. Schulte: “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)?”
It’s interesting that you think this is the same thing as what mutually consenting adults cjoose to do.
davidm2575: “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.”
There is nothing in the legal notion of marriage that requires even trying to reproduce let alone reproduction being its “purpose”.. The ability to get married is no indication as to being suitable parents either. “Natural law” (unions for the purpose of reproduction) don’t require marriages at all.
davep wrote: “There is nothing in the legal notion of marriage that requires even trying to reproduce let alone reproduction being its “purpose”.. ”
From Maynard v. Hill, they wrote that marriage is “the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
The concept of family follows from the idea of creating and raising children. In some states, the marriage must be consummated by coitus.
You see, this is the whole problem with the homosexual propaganda. It diminishes the understanding of marriage so that people actually think that marriage has nothing to do with reproduction, raising children, or family relations.
Pedophilia is illegal, homosexuality is legal. You are equating an adult sexual orientation with a mental disorder that preys on innocent children. There is NO logical extension there Paul.
Inga: “So the right to privacy by the adulterer hypocrites are more important than the right to legal marriage by gay people? Who says so?”
Two wrongs don’t make it right (likely something your parents told you).
You can’t marry an eight year old because it’s an eight year old, and we don’t let people take sexual advantage of eight year olds.
Not at this time. 😐
Lots of things change over time. I doubt that this will be one of them, but people need to be aware that what is not acceptable today, can be acceptable tomorrow. This entire discussion about homosexual marriage is evidence that social trends are not carved in stone.
Rep. Todd’s proposed action might be legal, but calumny is still unethical.
Jude and Fiver, Paul’s analogy was a bad one. That he and David don’t see it that way is not at all surprising. I was waiting for someone to make a similar bad analogy, Paul was just the first, then seconded by David. So predictable.
Jude – it was not so long ago that homosexual sex was illegal. Now same sex couples can marry in many states. Who is to say someplace the law will not change to make pedophilia legal? And marriage with 8 year olds will be legal. Age limits change all the time by statue. The age of consent has changed many times and varies by state. There was a very funny fake commercial on Reno 911! about a wallet card that had the age of consent for all 50 states.
Paul and David miss the obvious: We don’t treat 8-year-olds as people who can consent to sex or anything at all. They cannot enter into a legal contract. Only adults can do that. In some vague circumstances, kids can sign with consent from their parents. However, since marriage typically goes hand in hand with sex and 8-year-olds cannot consent to sex… What the hell are either of you even talking about?
Jude wrote: “Paul and David miss the obvious: We don’t treat 8-year-olds as people who can consent to sex or anything at all.”
You miss the logic of Paul’s comment. He was responding to the following argument:
Inga wrote: “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.”
The implication of her argument is that all sexual orientation is fine, and that those who distinguish between good sexual orientation and bad sexual orientation are bigots. Paul’s comment challenges her defective logic by pointing out a sexual orientation to which she objects. What is obvious to all logical thinkers is that like many women, her thinking is based more on feelings than on rational thought.
There is an organization called Nambla that is fighting for their sexual orientation of man-boy love. Can you imagine what they will do with the law when the sexual orientation provisions the homosexuals are establishing in our laws is complete? They will have legal grounds to change the laws you now cite as protecting those under 18 years old from giving consent to have sex. I recommend you visit Nambla.org and read the articles if you think this is fantasy.
I see a lot of people saying that these people deserve privacy. But under what? What right protects the privacy of sexual infidelity? If other people know about something, then they can talk about it. If you don’t like someone telling people about the “bad” things you’ve done, then maybe don’t do them?
WTF, Paul?
No. You can’t marry an eight year old because it’s an eight year old, and we don’t let people take sexual advantage of eight year olds.
Is that really so difficult to understand?
And you talk about others not having good answers?
fiver – it was a logical extension of the statement on sexual orientation by Inga. It is not an analogy. I was pointing out to Inga how silly her statement is. She still has not been able to answer the question. She has deflected, but not interested.
davidm2575,
Perhaps you might provide some citation for your, um, unique legal analysis. The court opinion you linked to certainly provides legal authority for its position.
I’m unaware of any lawyer who contends that laws restricting a marital relationship do not trigger a strict scrutiny analysis. It appears your compelling state interest relates to “procreation.” That certainly relates to biblical concepts of marriage (e.g. King David, with his numerous wives, and King Solomon, with his even more numerous wives – and their concubines – could certainly procreate). Yet it doesn’t appear you are arguing for polygamy. Why not?
So, infertile people should not be permitted to marry? Adoptive parents and adopted children are somehow “false” parents and children?
You do understand that this notion is, legally speaking, absurd – no matter how “carefully” you want a judge to read the case law. Forget about strict scrutiny; this would have difficulty passing even a rational basis analysis.
But you don’t appear to be talking about case law, constitutional law, or any other law recognized by those who have bothered to learn anything about, um, the law. It appears you are referring to some obscure “biological law” or a “natural law” of your own invention.
Under these imaginary codes, could you please explain why Alabama should allow the infertile to marry? Why Alabama should not require the childless and the elderly to divorce? Why polygamy should not be allowed and encouraged?
And go ahead, civil unrest all you want. Anti-homosexual bigotry is on the decline even among republicans.
fiver wrote: “Perhaps you might provide some citation for your, um, unique legal analysis. The court opinion you linked to certainly provides legal authority for its position.”
I commented in more detail around this time last year on this blog. Following is what I wrote:
—-
I agree wholeheartedly with the Loving decision, but I do not agree with the idea that States cannot treat same sex unions differently than opposite sex unions. There are important differences in these two types of unions.
The Loving decision was based upon recognizing marriage as a fundamental right, which places a higher level of scrutiny in regards to State regulation. With strict scrutiny at play, the State must show a compelling governmental interest and use the least restrictive means possible in regulating it. Although the Loving case does not use the actual word “reproduction,” it refers to the reproductive role of marriage when describing marriage as “fundamental to our very existence and survival.” The cases to which the Loving court refers very plainly refer to the reproductive consequence of marriage.
From Loving v. Virginia:
“Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535, 316 U. S. 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State. These convictions must be reversed. It is so ordered.”
The primary case to which the Loving court refers is Skinner v. Oklahoma, which is a case about whether the State was allowed to sterilize habitual criminals. The court said no and opined as follows:
“But the instant legislation runs afoul of the equal protection clause, though we give Oklahoma that large deference which the rule of the foregoing cases requires. We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. The power to sterilize, if exercised, may have subtle, far-reaching and devastating effects. In evil or reckless hands, it can cause races or types which are inimical to the dominant group to wither and disappear. There is no redemption for the individual whom the law touches. Any experiment which the State conducts is to his irreparable injury. He is forever deprived of a basic liberty.”
You should notice that the language used in Loving (“Marriage is … fundamental to our very existence and survival”) was language lifted almost verbatim from the Skinner case. The Skinner case was not about the State forbidding marriage at all, but about the State sterilizing prisoners. Marriage comes into that discussion because sterilizing an individual interferes with an important purpose of Marriage, which is procreation.
In the Maynard v. Hill case, marriage is expounded upon in the same vein, as something fundamental to mankind’s survival and propagation. Furthermore, it expounds upon marriage as something more than just a mere contract between two parties. One of the negative effects of gay marriage upon the law has been to change this character of marriage into making it only a contract between two people who agree to it.
From Maynard v. Hill:
“It is also to be observed that while marriage is often termed by text writers and in decisions of courts as a civil contract, generally to indicate that it must be founded upon the agreement of the parties, and does not require any religious ceremony for its solemnization, it is something more than a mere contract. The consent of the parties is, of course, essential to its existence, but when the contract to marry is executed by the marriage, a relation between the parties is created which they cannot change. Other contracts may be modified, restricted, or enlarged, or entirely released upon the consent of the parties. Not so with marriage. The relation once formed, the law steps in and holds the parties to various obligations and liabilities. It is an institution in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested, for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
The court connects the concept of marriage with being the foundation for family and society, the obvious inference being the children produced in marriage that provides for the continuance of family and society beyond one generation.
Same sex couples certainly have the right to contract in their association together with each other, but to pretend that same sex unions are identical to opposite sex unions is to perpetuate a fraud upon society. It is a lie which will lead to many societal ills, foremost among those who believe the lie and commit their whole lives to a type of relationship that differs significantly from what government taught them about it.
—
http://jonathanturley.org/2014/02/15/loving-for-all-in-virginia-getting-it-right-the-second-time-around/
fiver wrote: “So, infertile people should not be permitted to marry? Adoptive parents and adopted children are somehow “false” parents and children?”
There are two primary reasons for marriage. The first relies upon gender diversity, where two people come together into complementary unity. Such requires male and female because of the differences that exist between the genders. The weaknesses of the male are made up for by the strengths of the female, and likewise the weaknesses of the female by the male. The second reason is the creation of a family to create and raise children. Infertile couples are permitted to marry, because of the primary reason just articulated, but it would in most cases be advisable that they not marry.
Adoptive parents are not “false” parents, but as most parents of both biological and adoptive children can tell you, being biologically related to your children and being unrelated biologically is very significant in the parenting process. It is better to have families biologically related to each other.
fiver wrote: “It appears you are referring to some obscure “biological law” or a “natural law” of your own invention.”
I am a scientist by background, so it is natural for me to focus upon the biology of this matter, but the natural law to which I refer is not at all my own invention. Natural law, as you well know, is the basis for defining a fundamental right, and it is the basis for requiring strict scrutiny over a rational basis review by the high court. It is self-evident that every individual has a natural right to reproduce and leave children to future generations.
In the Skinner case cited previously, they wrote, “Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.” Clearly, marriage in this context refers only to opposite sex marriage. The notion of same sex marriage was never considered back then. The concept never existed. Same sex marriage is NOT fundamental to the very existence and survival of the human race because there is no procreation involved. It is only a sloppy reading of these past cases that cause people to twist the law to say things that they were never meant to say.