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.
It’s OK Paul, no need to be embarrassed.
Inga – you seem to have a personal issue with adulterers. Somebody in your past?
Feminists are damaged and broken people who want the world to suffer like they do. They believe, unscientifically, that lesbians are the epitome of humanity.
They are basically evil, and have no redeeming qualities. All else flows form this truth.
And it appears I’m not alone in that opinion.
Davep,
I do think it’s justifiable. I do not think such measures should be taken lightly and I doubt the Rep. is doing so without much thought. Sometimes people who deny other people the same rights as the rest of society, need a wake up call to see the error of their ways.
Good for her. Hope she makes them bleed…so to speak.
The Alabama Constitution is worth studying. Once you have done so, decide whether these yahoos deserve a second of your time. For starters….
At 340,136 words, the document is 12 times longer than the average state constitution, 40 times longer than the U.S. Constitution, and is the longest still-operative constitution anywhere in the world.[1] (The English version of the Constitution of India, the longest national constitution, is about 117,369 words long, a third of the length.)
About 90 percent of the document’s length, as of 2012, comes from its 856 amendments. About 75 percent of the amendments cover only a single county or city, and some deal with salaries of specific officials (e.g. Amendment 480 and the Greene County probate judge). This gives Alabama a large number of constitutional officers
Additionally, they are not big believers in local laws. The state legislature has to approve all local laws. Some system they’ve made up there.
Paul C. Schulte: “davep – you have to go back in Inga original comment for it all to make sense. Everything else is just riffing on a theme.”
Inga’s problem is that she thinks responding to a wrong act with another wrong act is justifiable or she doesn’t seem to think there is anything wrong with the response.
If you have a theme, it’s less clear than you think it is.
davep – I don’t think I have a theme, I just think there is a theme.
There is no hypocrisy in politics more blatant than the way women have protected the rapist, and now pedophile, Bill Clinton. NONE!
If the private consensual conduct of adult politicians is nobody’s business other than those participating in the conduct, then we citizens owe a bunch of people an apology. Including Bill Clinton.
But the fact is, even if you think Clinton was an ok president , it was a very bad idea for him to engage in conduct that could have given third parties “leverage points” (aka the ability to “blackmail” him) by threatening to publicly expose his conduct.
Influencing the behavior of public officials by threatening disclosure of ostensibly private “damaging” information is a very bad idea. That is so whether the threat is public or private. That is so whether it involves Strom Thurmond or JFK.
I doubt that I agree with davidm on anything else he has said on this thread, but I agree that secret affairs and similar conduct of public officials that could lead to them being blackmailed needs to be promptly disclosed, not kept under wraps to be used as leverage by those hoping to control the behavior of those who refuse to walk the Appalachian Trail in public.
If she has knowledge of a criminal act under Section 4184 of the Code of Alabama – It is her “Duty” to report such activity – – But then, just how far does the ruling of the Lawrence court go – – Justice Kennedy – “government cannot criminalize the private intimate affairs of consenting adults.” On the face of it, the ruling has no boundaries regarding the married with the unmarried, the related or unrelated couple, throuple or other – –
FIFY
And, yes, the firestorm is both easily seen, let alone imagine, and rather funny to watch… well, it’s probably not great for those self righteous know-it-alls, I guess. But it’s still pretty funny for the rest of us. 😆
Don’t blame me for your bad analogy Paul.
Inga – it is not my fault you do not know what an analogy is.
Paul C. Schulte: “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.”
How is the issue of homosexuality equivalent to the issue of age of consent (which also applies to heterosexual sex and marriage)?
The age of consent is inherently fuzzy, which means “change” regarding it isn’t very surprising (the law is stuck picking an arbitrary age). Still, it doesn’t seem that 8 years is anywhere near what a large number of people in the US would see as a reasonable age of consent.
davep – you have to go back in Inga original comment for it all to make sense. Everything else is just riffing on a theme.
Replace adultery with gay and you can see the problem with some self righteous know it all getting into other people’s businesses.
Can you imagine the firestorm if someone said they were going to out gay people?
Elaine,
I’d say at least two would have to define those terms 😉
As for the law? There has to be a point where we should just presume unconstitutionality. I’m thinking that where Alabama and sex intersect is an excellent place to start.
Paul,
I’d say one would have to define what “live together in adultery or fornication” means with regard to the law.
Elaine – it isn’t a one-night stand in a no-tell motel.
Paul,
I re-read the comments. It doesn’t bail you out. Really, it doesn’t.
But OTOH, I did find this gem right at the top:
Gotta just love that cocktail of snarky (I hope) obliviousness. The values of America apparently include the love of adultery (which the Bible prohibits as a major sin) and hatred of lesbianism (which the Bible doesn’t prohibit in the least).
NS, you are my (perhaps accidental) hero.
And Paul, it was YOU that started this conversation by wrongly equating pedophilia with homosexuality. I suggest you scold yourself. Now I challenge you to get back to the topic and quit the diversions.
Inga, Inga, Inga – as I said, you misread what I wrote and you lost the thread.
I believe Alabama is one of more than twenty states where cheating on one’s spouse is against the law. We can’t have scofflaws serving in the legislature, can we?
😉
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=106&invol=583
Section 4184 of the Code of Alabama provides that ‘if any man and woman live together in adultery or fornication, each of them must, on the first conviction of the offense, be fined not less than $100, and may also be imprisoned in the county jail or sentenced to hard labor for the county for not more than six months. On the second conviction for the offense, with the same person, the offender must be fined not less than $300, and may be imprisoned in the county jail, or sentenced to hard labor for the county, for not more than 12 months; and for a third or any subsequent conviction with the same person, must be imprisoned in the penitentiary or sentenced to hard labor for the county for two years.”
Elaine – according to the statute you supplied you actually have to live in adultery for the statute to kick in. Just the act does not seem to do the trick.
Paul, you lost this argument with your extremely bad analogy, don’t be a sore loser.