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 – so sorry for what you and your daughter endured.
Frankly, one could attack anyone’s values if they fail to lead an unblemished life. It’s a false argument.
It’s like saying you cannot speak out against the problem of vehicles speeding by your kids’ school if you have ever received a speeding ticket yourself.
You can no longer express an opinion of right and wrong if you have ever committed any wrong yourself.
That’s taking the “don’t cast the first stone” approach and using it to silence the expression of opinions.
The issue is not whether same sex marriage should be legal. The issue is whether if you don’t believe in same sex marriage, a politician should dig up dirt on you and blackmail you into supporting it.
It’s the tactics involved that are in question.
Same sex marriage will wend its way through the courts in time. Using blackmail to further it will do more harm than good to the cause. It is naive to assume otherwise, or to defend blackmail using the argument “the ends justifies the means.”
Because, one day, they might be on the other end of a government that blackmails to get what it wants. And they might not like it when they are on the receiving end.
Considering how we have allowed our government to run amuck, both in surveillance of citizens without warrant, and in abuse of power, what will this trend produce if we expand it outwards a decade or two?
Paul,
I don’t really have any comment. I’ve just never had a chance to use the word “trigamy” in context and didn’t want to waste this chance.
Some people are vindictive (as evidenced here on this thread) and revel in the idea of exposing an elected official’s adultery for political payback. Doing so may be titillating to you but you are ignoring the cruelty that exposes all of the other people by this invasion of privacy.
The injured spouse or spouses. The children involved. The family and friends. All of these people are injured by the wanton cruel exposure of an adulterous affair.
Many times, the spouses, friends and family are completely aware of the situation. The spouses are trying to privately work things out or come to a dignified conclusion. Privately and in great pain. Often the innocent spouse will not be aware of the adultery and the shocking exposure and public humiliation is crushing.
HOWEVER, either way, to expose the situation, make a spectacle of everyone in the public area….for spite and revenge…..only guarantees that the injured spouses and children will suffer more pain and there will be no dignified solution.
I speak from experience having been the injured/cheated on spouse in my first marriage (many years ago). The humiliation and knowing that everyone knew all about the intimate details of my marriage, when I didn’t know myself, was almost worse than the actual betrayal. My daughter was devastated when the whole thing became public and the betrayal of not only her father, but the mother of one her best friends (the other adulterer) was very damaging to her young psyche.
Inga thinks this is a good thing to : ” point out the hypocrisy of bullies and bigots and give them a bit of their own medicine. It could even be called tough love, lol.
LOL ??? really. LOL?…making people’s lives miserable?. LOL? embarrassing the children?. LOL?….maybe someone will commit suicide and really give them a good lesson? Ha ha….Wouldn’t that just put the cherry on your sundae?
Probably one of the most heartless and cruel statements I’ve seen in a long time.
fiver – glad I gave you the opening. 😉
Paul, Paul, Paul. I actually only know one woman, my cousin, in my entire immediate, extended and circle of friends, whose husband cheated on her, so my answer is no. My problem is with hypocrites, I really do not care what anyone does in their bedrooms, or the bedrooms of their mistresses. Of course adultery is a sin, so the person who commits it has no credibility promoting family values.
Inga – it is a sin only if you believe it is a sin. Sin has become a very slippery slope. Taking birth control pills is a sin for Catholic women but most do it. Whether they still consider it sin is a matter of conscience. For many who blog here it is not a sin since they are either atheists or agnostics.
One of the difficulties that women have in understanding men is their failure to realize that men compartmentalize the parts of their life. So, they have no problem being a great father and still having a mistress on the side. The one has nothing to do with the other. Some men have been able to maintain up to three families simultaneously without the others knowing.
While it would be fun to see these “hypocritical Christian” guys (and maybe gals) squirm, it’s the whole two wrongs don’t make a right thing.
When did exposing adultery become a violation of the right to privacy?
Bailers,
Liars? No she should not lie. If she would do this she needs irrefutable proof it’s true. Should homosexuals place trust in these legislators to not discriminate against them because of their sexual orientation? Seems the answer is no.
Inga: “It’s a way to point out the hypocrisy of bullies and bigots and give them a bit of their own medicine. It could even be called tough love, lol.”
If you believe in the right to privacy, then you are a hypocrite for promoting this, which is bullying too.
Inga,
You cannot defend this. You are trying to justify one injustice with another. You might as well defend blacks lynching whites as morally acceptable for past sins of slavery and Jim Crow.
Put in any other situation, this woman would be charged under RICO laws with extortion. It is repugnant. It is morally bankrupt, and there is no place under the laws of man that this can be considered okay.
And guess what? Hypocrisy of bigots isn’t exposed by stating they they are having affairs. It only exposes those that have fought and sometimes died for the freedom to live their lives without interference of Government and busy-bodies as liars and being completely unworthy of trust and respect.
Hopefully the ‘lesson’ would be learned.
It’s a way to point out the hypocrisy of bullies and bigots and give them a bit of their own medicine. It could even be called tough love, lol.
Inga – do you really want us to go tough love on you and expose the hypocrisy we know is there?
Inga: “Who gives these hypocrites and adulterers that authority?”
Who gave you the authority over people’s privacy? Or, are you just assuming arrogating the authority to violate people’s right to privacy?
And, how do we guarantee those people don’t abuse that power?
If it’s OK to disclose adultery, it’s OK to out homosexuality.
Paul C. Schulte: “davep – I don’t think I have a theme, I just think there is a theme.”
Maybe, it would be less confusing if you were less coy about what you think that theme is.
davep – I let people discover themes on their own. It is more fun that way. 🙂
Inga: “Davep, I do think it’s justifiable.”
Obviously. That’s the basis of your problem (if you agree with people’s right to privacy). You are willing to bend ethical principles when doing so advantages you.
The basic requirement of privacy is that the owner of the information doesn’t have to get approval from other people for what they allowed to keep private.
That is, privacy is only possible if people can keep “bad” things private.
If you really believe in privacy, you have to accept and tolerate that some “bad” things will be kept private. You (or anybody else) being able to decide what other people are allowed to keep private would violate privacy.
If you believe in privacy, you are willing to suspend that principle when doing so helps your cause. That would mean you don’t really believe in privacy at all.
It’s like certain “free speechers” wanting to censor speech they don’t like. They don’t really believe in free speech at all.
Who gives these hypocrites and adulterers that authority?
Is it less evil to deny rights to homosexuals that are afforded to all other Americans of heterosexual orientation?
Inga wrote: “Is it less evil to deny rights to homosexuals that are afforded to all other Americans of heterosexual orientation?”
Homosexuals have never been denied the right to marry because of their sexual orientation. Check out Josh Weed’s website and find a homosexual who married and has children even though he is a homosexual.
http://www.joshweed.com/
His example is the way it has always been.
I have never in my life heard of anyone being denied a marriage license because of their sexual orientation, nor have I ever heard of anyone applying for a marriage license and being asked about their sexual orientation. Sexual orientation has NEVER had anything to do with being allowed to legally marry.
This is what upsets me about people who buy into the lying propaganda. This whole activist movement that Patricia Todd is involved with has nothing to do with civil rights. It is about changing the definition of marriage. Todd doesn’t even care about serving her State as a representative to the legislature. She only wants to change the laws to be in accordance with her gay agenda. If you watch her interview, she says it blatantly right there for all to hear.
Inga, you couldn’t be more wrong. There is no justification for this. It’s morally and ethically evil. If you are right you destroy three or more lives. If you are wrong, you’ve destroyed three or more lives.
This is evil.
Pogo,oy, lol, oky doky then….I have no words…