A confession by Portland's first openly gay mayor that he lied about having sex with a teenager is dividing this famously progressive city, as well as its gay community.
Just three weeks after Sam Adams was sworn in, many gays are questioning whether he is the man they want as their trailblazer.
I would imagine if many gays are questioning it, the straights are too. I guess Mr. Adams' days as the first openly gay mayor of a major American city are numbered.
It started earlier this week when the 45-year-old Adams admitted to an alternative newspaper, Willamette Week, that he lied during his election campaign when he denied having sex in 2005 with a teenage male who was a legislative intern.So, when he was about 41, he'd had sex with a 17 year-old. That's against the law. But is it really that bad? I mean, there's a big difference between what he did and some of the child sex abuse we hear about.
For me, his being gay has nothing to do with it. The questions are simply how bad were his actions and how bad is it that he lied about them.
''Sam has been our guy forever, which makes this even harder,'' said Marty Davis, publisher of the newspaper Just Out, which has called for his resignation. ''It's completely dividing and tearing our community right down the middle.''Sometimes it seems we're as hung up about lying as we are about sex. Is the idea supposed to be that politicians generally do not lie, so when we catch one at it, we're outraged? Or, is it a case of excessively punishing the ones who get caught lying because we know the rest of them are doing it too? Either way it doesn't seem right to me.
Davis of Just Out said she is not as concerned about Adams' relationship with the young man as she is about the lying. She said his actions have eroded the public's trust in her publication.
What's your opinion? Does the fact that he'd had sex with the intern and lied about it impact upon his ability to govern the city? Are we expecting too much from our politicians, complete chastity and total honesty? Do we demand that of ourselves?
Please leave a comment.
First up, I don't dig on those numbers games for how to determine the oldest and/or youngest one might have a personal relationship with.
ReplyDeleteA relationship requires a hell of a lot more to be shared between two people than just sex and mutual attraction.
Sex of both parties independent what does a 17 year old and a 45-year old talk about pre or post coitus? I think we all know this was just sex.
Whatever the motives (weather the boy was coerced or somehow desired this man...or gifts or power were exchanged) this is a relationship our society deems improper. And liberal or conservative, I don't think we'd want ANY of our boys engaged in such a relationship if given a choice (the legal guardians likely weren't so that's moot).
The gay part is a non issue, and should be a non-issue. The only reason why it often is is because of the right to marriage. By our legal system, coupled with a Juadeo-Christian culture (you may not be a christian or a Jew, but if you're American it's a part of your culture...and I'm neither Christian or Jew, and I don't take issue in it) makes all homosexual sex unacceptable. This also means that the gay culture is forced to be celebant or to go against that sexual norm as not only is marriage not allowed, there are no gay married couples as role models.
This needs to change.
I know so many good and chaste men, many in leadership, business and church and academia. Why do we have to settle for men who lack self-control, honesty and good morals?
ReplyDeleteA fellow that has sex with someone so young --of the same sex, which is perverted --and lies --is not who you want to run anything where ethics are pretty important.
I always point out that such guys have even more to hide --and will have more in their futures to hide --and when you have skeletons in your closet, past or present, you are black-mailable --and that makes you one lousy high risk as a public servant --which is why Clinton should never have been elected --he had a trail of stories he didn't want to come out --and who knows whom he paid off to keep his secrets with what political favors --or killed off?
The version of the story that I heard was that the two met when the young man was 17 and an intern, but when they had sex, the young man was 18, and no longer an intern.
ReplyDeleteAge and intern status make a big difference here. If it was sex with an 18 year old former intern, it should be private. If it was with an underage intern, it is an ethical problem. Gender of the intern makes no difference.
I don't know where the line should be in questioning politicians about their private lives. I think it is underhanded to ask a question that should remain private, then say something like "the real problem is that he lied".
There could easily be more to this story that would change my opinion.
Sevesteen, That's a great synopsis. I agree totally. But who determines where that line is when it comes to politicians? Here in Europe, people found it absurd that Clinton felt he had to answer to the public about his private sex life. In America, obviously many feel it shouldn't be considered private. Barb said repeatedly that this kind of behavior leaves them open to blackmail. That's the first I'd heard of that rationale. I would imagine it's just an excuse for many disapproving folks, what do you think?
ReplyDeletethat's a typical catch-22 that's been applied to homosexuals in the past --- "we can't accept you for what you are, because if it became known somebody might blackmail you about it since it isn't acceptable". used to be homosexuals could not get security clearances, with this exact circular argument used as the excuse.
ReplyDeleteit's blatant nonsense, of course. just get everybody's noses out of everybody else's private sex lives and quit worrying about who's screwing whom, then the whole "problem" goes away. thankfully, society's headed in that general direction, even if not quite as fast as i'd like.
Mike, I've never heard of the blackmail rationale for avoiding leaders with shameful secrets --It's my own thought.
ReplyDeleteIt just seems logical that a man trying to hide an affair even from his wife --much less the public and the media--is liable for blackmail/manipulation by those who find out his secrets --be they foreign countries or the Mafia wanting a cover-up or politicians wanting favors.
You can try to destigmatize homosexuality, Nomen, but that won't mean that every man -like a Larry Craig --won't want his homosexual activities kept secret --that there won't be affairs and betrayals and past frauds and tax evasions and molestations that a politician will want kept secret.
ReplyDeleteOpposition media will always dig for the dirt --and politicians and other leaders will be better off if they come into office without any baggage or proclivities that make them vulnerable to blackmail.
If you insist on pure, chaste politicians, those wanting a political career will at least pretend to be chaste. Contrast Larry Craig with Charlie Wilson. Charlie was a hard drinking womanizing man, but what you saw was what you got--He didn't claim to be anything else, and since he didn't keep it a secret, there was nothing to blackmail. (I'm not a fan of his politics, however) The same goes for an "out" gay politician compared to a closeted one.
ReplyDeleteBarb says it's her idea. I think that's quite impressive; to me it makes sense. Nomen however refers it as the old "catch 22" that's been used against gays. He says we should get our noses out of each others sex lives. I'd like to know how. Sevesteen made a good connection that it's the concealment that invites the problem. But I don't think we can expect all gay politicians to come out and we certainly can't expect all the straying husbands to admit that openly. It's a tough one.
ReplyDeleteNor can you expect the electorate to choose the Charlie Wilsons and the Barney Franks --in most districts.
ReplyDeleteTo be open about your sexual indiscretions, promiscuity, oddness --or whatever, is to invite opposition and lose elections. Some Religious Right person like me will say, "He who can't be trusted in the small things, ought not be trusted with great." Which is why I will not support a philanderer like BC. Or a guy whose roomate ran a brothel out of their basement --like Barney Franks.
Like I said, I've known so many good men, chaste husbands, and I believe there are many--and they should be entrusted with leadership, not those who can't keep it in their pants. (blush --pardon me.)
Likewise, a guy with tax problems or tax evasions seems like the sort who ought not run the Treas. Dep't of the US or have any Cabinet position.
ReplyDeleteGranted, someone can be audited and mistakes can be found --especially if you hire someone else to do your taxes --and the media could make more of that than they should. O for a flat tax! simple! But how many IRS agents and HR Block types would lose their jobs!
Yes, that was a typical Barb digression --sorry.
WB --If you're Muslim, homosexuality is also forbidden for you --not just for Christians and Jews.
ReplyDeleteBefore wanting gay marriage, we should really ask ourselves --if we do not want our sons involved in homosexuality, if we want them to have normal orientation, then why should we destigmatize this lifestyle and encourage the homosexual role model?
I think what they do is absolutely abnormal, repugnant (not them, what they do), unsanitary, highly promiscuous and high risk for disease. To me, there is nothing to be gained and much to be lost by creating gay marriage in the law. IN England, half the Catholic adoption agencies are closing because they've been told they have to give kids to gay couples on a par with the straight, denying children of either a mother or a father.
This is a time to help kids be normal, encourage marriage, fidelity and parenting --we need kids to work and pay taxes for social security support and other social programs, consumers for the economy, soldiers for the national defense, health care people for all, and entrepreneurs to generate jobs. We abort 1.6 million a year --and now we want to encourage men to marry men and women to marry women? We will get a lot more gender-flexible people by promoting and legalizing gay marriage.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Before wanting gay marriage, we should really ask ourselves --if we do not want our sons involved in homosexuality, if we want them to have normal orientation, then why should we destigmatize this lifestyle and encourage the homosexual role model?"
ReplyDeleteI don't see the big deal in it. Of course my feelings would go to the family-values angle no matter if a child was hetero or homosexual.
Promicusity is an invitiation for trouble, as is sex to an emotionally immiture person. I don't play the "No Diamond no Hymen" sort of game for chastity....tho frankly sexual partners should have a higher commitment in mind.
IMHO: There is more media effort going into promoting the gay life and getting gay marriage than into fostering good hetero marriages --and normal gender identity/orientation in kids.
ReplyDeleteMovies are abysmal in their messages to youth --take Sleepless in Seattle; the heroine already has a sleep-in lover, a common-law husband of sorts. But that's ok; she can get into someone else's bed. Almost everyone in the movies has sex before the wedding. And all the divorced single moms are able to find available single, handsome, rich men to marry.
Such examples do not really model the path to rewarding, lifetime marriage and lasting happiness where there are grandparents, parents, and kids intact with their natural relatives. And the last example, is unrealistic; good men are harder to find the second time around. and people aren't marrying as much as trying it out, shacking up. Divorce rate is said to be higher for those who do "trial marriage" first.
This can't be good for a culture and its children.