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.
Karen,
There’s little difference between what this legislator is proposing and a wise guy that says it would be a shame if something happened to that nice family of yours.
Either way, it’s extortion. It’s wrong. And no matter what the reason, is indefensible.
davidm2575: “That’s why I argued from the natural biology of it, how were are all created male and female, and a person becomes complete in the union of male and female not male and male or female and female.”
That argument is wrong. And obviously so. “Natural biology” clearly shows that “marriage” isn’t necessary at all for procreation or coitus. As I pointed out before.
Since marriage can exist without procreation and procreation can exist without marriage (all of which you know), then arguing that one is necessary for the other is logically false.
davep wrote: ““Natural biology” clearly shows that “marriage” isn’t necessary at all for procreation or coitus. As I pointed out before.”
Nobody is saying that it is impossible for two people to engage in coitus or procreation without marriage. What is being put forward is that the traditional view of marriage as an institution for the union of two opposite sex individuals to engage in coitus and produce children, create a family, and to raise and educate those children into adulthood, relies upon basic biology. To accomplish this, marriage requires a male and a female. The other biological configurations that you have in mind simply do not work. Two males and two females coming together in a union do not create the desired purpose of marriage.
Now if you want to change marriage to be simply a domestic partnership, then all you have done is destroyed a meaningful definition of marriage. You will cause people to have to reinvent terms or simply to continue to deny your arrogance in hijacking the word marriage. Maybe it will be similar to how the word gay cannot be used anymore in its traditional sense anymore because the homosexuals hijacked that word.
davep wrote: “Since marriage can exist without procreation and procreation can exist without marriage (all of which you know), then arguing that one is necessary for the other is logically false.”
Another strawman argument. Nobody has argued that one is necessary for the other. I have simply pointed out that procreation, coupled with the creation of a family and raising ones children into adulthood, along with a synergistic and complementary union between two people of the opposite gender, are primary goals in the institution of marriage. While the primacy of opposite gender unity might mitigate the usual goal of procreation in marriage, it does not make that purpose of marriage of no effect. For young people in particular, understanding marriage as an institution facilitating the creation of a stable natural family will be more beneficial to society than the homosexual vision of making marriage about two people committed to each other for purely romantic reasons.
davidm2575: “First you were talking about same sex couples, now you change to talk about opposite sex couples.”
Huh? You aren’t making any sense! You were talking about both!
davidm2575: “I did not define marriage as fundamental to procreation. The court case did. You asked for a legal reference and so I gave you one.”
That comment in a court decision doesn’t indicate that procreation or coitus is a legal requirement of marriage.
davidm2575: “Coitus is the consummation of the marriage, and the expected result of coitus is procreation. I’m not moving any goal posts.”
You first said that procreation was a necessary condition of marriage. That, obviously, isn’t true: there’s no prohibition against marriage for people who don’t procreate.
Then, you said that coitus was a necessary condition of marriage. That, maybe less obviously, isn’t true either: there’s no prohibition against marriage for people who don’t have coitus.
That’s moving the goal posts.
The obvious point is that marriage can exist without procreation or coitus.
Nor, obviously, does marriage confer a magical ability to raise children well.
davidm2575: “Even way back in the code of Hammurabi in a culture that allowed polygamy, a barren wife was grounds for declaring a defective marriage.”
So, you think that’s a good thing? Slavery was a part of that culture too. And likely all sorts of other things that you (presumably) wouldn’t approve of.
davidm2575: “I never said they were the same thing. Marriage is an institution that is the most effective way of creating and raising children.”
Again, marriage doesn’t require raising children. Whether or not marriage is the “most effective” at doing something is irrelevant legally (since the law isn’t concerned with whether or not you do that thing).
And, are many, many examples of children being raised INEFFECTIVELY by married heterosexual couples. Also, marriages that don’t involve children (hetero or not) don’t have an effect on how children are raised in marriages or not or effectively or not.
davidm2575: “It is absolutely true. When you have two men, you have two penises and no vagina where the penis goes. You have semen but no ova. When you have two women, you have two vaginas but no penis for the vagina. You have ova but no semen. The biological equipment is DIFFERENT! Please, this is self-evident.”
Too weird.
We are talking about marriage.
Marriage is NOT the same as a particular sex act. Marriage DOES NOT REQUIRE the execution of a particular sex act. You keep suggesting that it does have such a requirement when you know that that is FALSE.
Bizarre.
davep wrote: “Marriage DOES NOT REQUIRE the execution of a particular sex act. You keep suggesting that it does have such a requirement when you know that that is FALSE.”
No, it is not false. In the changing of the definition of marriage, that has begun to be stripped away the same way that opposite gender has been stripped from its definition. But traditionally, sexual union has always been considered a very important part of marriage. Over the centuries, terminology developed to talk about fornication, which is a sexual relationship outside of marriage, so as to distinguish it from sexual relations within the marriage bed.
If you truly view marriage has having nothing to do with sexual relations, if marriage is only two people cohabiting as roommates, then you truly are cheapening marriage by changing it from its traditional perspective of involving a man and woman coming together to create a family with children, and raising those children to adulthood through communal property and sharing in the work of raising them.
“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.”
Since this did not clarify the ends do not justify the means to some, let me try another tack.
“Unless you back down from supporting same sex marriage, I will reveal damning information about your personal life,” said one high ranking politician to another. “Abandon your sincere opinions or I will ruin your life.”
Would this, too, be OK?
A wrong cannot become right because it helps a cause you believe in. It is NOT the cause that is the issue, it is the tactics. This is the very definition of viewing ethics through political glasses.
Anyone who keeps justifying the CAUSE fails to see the crux of the problem being discussed. We can trot out the adopted kids of homosexual unions all day long, and yet it has no effect on the discussion of the tactics used.
“Inga
Listen to yourselves, it’s the voice of hypocrisy.”
You’ve lost the right to call anyone hypocrites with your defense of the indefensible.
davidm2575: “Of course it does. It is impossible for a same sex couple to engage in coitus. The biological equipment does not exist for it,”
You know this is false and you keep saying it.
The existence of marriages which don’t involve procreation don’t preclude those that do.
davidm2575: “Of course it does. It is impossible for a same sex couple to engage in coitus. The biological equipment does not exist for it,”
davep wrote: “You know this is false and you keep saying it.”
It is absolutely true. When you have two men, you have two penises and no vagina where the penis goes. You have semen but no ova. When you have two women, you have two vaginas but no penis for the vagina. You have ova but no semen. The biological equipment is DIFFERENT! Please, this is self-evident.
It is like taking an electrical cord with two male ends or two female ends and trying to plug them into one another. It does not work. You get no power because they were not designed to work that way.
davidm2575: “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.”
Here’s another quote: “Something that you can quote doesn’t mean the quote is correct”.
I bet you could find a quote approving of slavery too.
davep wrote: “Something that you can quote doesn’t mean the quote is correct.”
So you ask for a legal quote and then when given it argue that just because the law took this position doesn’t mean it is correct. Fine. That’s why I argued from the natural biology of it, how were are all created male and female, and a person becomes complete in the union of male and female not male and male or female and female.
davidm2575: “Of course it does. It is impossible for a same sex couple to engage in coitus. The biological equipment does not exist for it,”
You know this is false and you keep saying it.
There exist heterosexual couples who are married for whom it is impossible to reproduce. It would seem that heterosexual couples exist who do not engage in coitus (for various reasons) and yet can still be married.
You first defined marriage as “fundemental” to procreation. Now, you are redefining it as coitus (which isn’t procreation). So, you are moving goal posts too!
Marriage isn’t the same thing as sex/procreation since each can exist without the other.
davep wrote: “There exist heterosexual couples who are married for whom it is impossible to reproduce. It would seem that heterosexual couples exist who do not engage in coitus (for various reasons) and yet can still be married.”
First you were talking about same sex couples, now you change to talk about opposite sex couples.
The law has often recognized that if a man gets engaged to a woman and then finds out she cannot engage in coitus and have children, that is grounds for breaking off the engagement to marry. Not being able to consummate a marriage often has been the grounds in law to annul a marriage. Even way back in the code of Hammurabi in a culture that allowed polygamy, a barren wife was grounds for declaring a defective marriage.
davep wrote: “You first defined marriage as “fundemental” to procreation. Now, you are redefining it as coitus (which isn’t procreation). So, you are moving goal posts too!”
I did not define marriage as fundamental to procreation. The court case did. You asked for a legal reference and so I gave you one. Coitus is the consummation of the marriage, and the expected result of coitus is procreation. I’m not moving any goal posts.
davep wrote: “Marriage isn’t the same thing as sex/procreation since each can exist without the other.”
I never said they were the same thing. Marriage is an institution that is the most effective way of creating and raising children. Children require a great deal of investment of time and energy to raise and educate. Marriage is the institution that creates family relationships that form the foundation of a civilized society. I’ve heard some democrats argue in this forum, however, argue that the tribe is the foundation of society. If you think that, you have a completely different perspective of society than I do. You would probably fit in better with someone like Masha Gessen.
davidm2575: “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.”
You are arguing by modifying the definition to suit your argument.
The characteristics of marriage haven’t been constant over time. I suspect that many defenders of marriage as a “tradition” would not be very happy with a “traditional” marriage.
Same-sex marriages don’t preclude the type of marriage you are talking about anyway.
davep wrote: “You are arguing by modifying the definition to suit your argument.”
No, biologically, we each come into this world as either male or female. We have different organs and even different brains. Males and females are not equal. We are equal before the law, but not equal in biological function and roles in reproduction. Furthermore, the man needs the woman to reproduce, and the woman needs the man. The union of marriage resolves all these issues into one unified whole.
The people who are modifying the definition to suit their argument are the homosexual activists. Their definition of marriage is founded neither in tradition nor biology. Their definition is not even founded in law, except in a certain twisting of certain legal principles and through a sleight of hand involving the notion of civil rights, they deceive people who have no understanding of the underlying principles to which their words refer.
davep wrote: “Same-sex marriages don’t preclude the type of marriage you are talking about anyway.”
Of course it does. It is impossible for a same sex couple to engage in coitus. The biological equipment does not exist for it, so they pervert the natural use of their organs and use them in unnatural ways that cause a much higher incidence of diseases among themselves. When we as a society attempt to approve of their dangerous methods of practicing sex by labeling their union as marriage, we are leading them toward disease and a shortened life span. Shame on us. We are actually sanctioning uncivil rights when we do this.
davidm2575: “In the Skinner case cited previously, they wrote, “Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
Clearly, procreation is “fundamental”.
Clearly, marriage is NOT “fundemental”, since there are many examples of procreation being done without it.
Additionally, same-sex marriage doesn’t really impact “procreation” at all.
(It seems that the construct of legal marriage was to protect property and inheritence.)
Paul C. Schulte: “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.”
It seems likely that many of the “familiy value” adulterers would publically claim that adultery is a sin. (Who knows whether they personally think it’s a sin.) If they think/claim that adultery is a sin, they are being hypocritical.
Paul C. Schulte: “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.”
Being “good at it” isn’t relevant.
Most cases of adultery seem to entail not being honest with partners. An “open” marriage would technically be adultery but, if everybody is open and honest, the ethical issues are not the same as adulterer in a “closed” marriage.
fiver: “When did exposing adultery become a violation of the right to privacy?”
Are you saying that adulterers want it to be known publically? Really?
It seems you are arguing that the right of privacy only applies to things you approve of!
Paul C. Schulte: “davep – I let people discover themes on their own. It is more fun that way.”
That’s certainly your choice. But it probably isn’t reasonable to complain that people aren’t “getting it” since it’s your choice not to communicate clearly.
“it’s the voice of hypocrisy” could also be Inga’s screen name.
‘LOL, it’s soooo funny to see same sex families being denied the same rights legal marriage affords others. Jesus, slap yer knee kind of funny. It’s soooo much more important to protect heterosexual marriages. The children of heterosexual marriages matter more than the children of same sex marriage.’ Listen to yourselves, it’s the voice of hypocrisy.
You are playing with fire DBQ! Do you want to subject us to a spittle flecked diatribe?
When did exposing homosexuality become a violation of the right to privacy?
@ Karen
Thank you. It was actually the best thing that ever happened to me (painful as it was at the time) since I am now happily married for over 20 years to my wonderful husband 🙂
and yet commenters have very negative reactions to the thought of their private lives being exposed online,
Quite so. Ironically, one of the biggest complainers of this on this blog, is a big supporter of exposing and destroying people’s private lives, as long as she can get political revenge on people who hold ideas that she disagrees with.
We can do a hypothetical mental exercise and see how wonderful though love can be when it might be applied to one of her children’s marriages. Suppose someone knows that a spouse of one of her children is being unfaithful and decides to plaster that information all over the media and the internet because……hypocrites deserve it. Cool, right? Just desserts? Good for the goose good for the gander? Or would that someone prefer that her family’s private information remain private.
Please note the bold font for hypothetical, since I know nothing about anyone’s private life, other than what they have disclosed. Nor do I want to.
Do you think people who engage in trigamy wake up and have to figure out for a moment where they are and who they are with, just to clear up the confusion?
DBQ – and yet commenters have very negative reactions to the thought of their private lives being exposed online, or having their online activities exposed.
One way for thee, another for me . . .
Personally, I prefer some measure of anonymity, because there are spiteful, vengeful people out there, like Patricia Todd, who will try to ruin your personal life because of opinions you express in public.