Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  job qualifications

Enjoying the Company of Men Doesn’t Make George Alan Rekers Unfit to Testify

The dinner table at 61-year-old George Alan Rekers’ Florida home must be a somber one. But while he figures out a way to dig himself out from a prostitution scandal, and whether he’ll still be accepted (or wants to be a part of) that anti-gay camp driven by organizations like NARTH, his status as a “legal expert” qualified to testify in court is being seriously questioned. Could it impact the cases he’s testified in?

He’s testified in Florida and Arkansas’ adoption suits, and even in a Boy Scouts case about the right to exclude gays. Does the knowledge he loves the company of young boys somehow make him a worthless expert witness? Some say yes, relay the Times.

But legal experts say the scandal may affect more than Dr. Rekers’s reputation. They say it places obligations on those who have relied on Dr. Rekers to inform the court in at least one continuing case to modify or withdraw their arguments. “Each lawyer must tell the court if he comes to know that one of his witnesses has given ‘false’ testimony,” said Stephen Gillers, an expert in legal ethics at New York University. That could come into play if the expert is discredited, he added.

Rekers being exposed as a john, sadly, is not what makes his testimony “false.” It is its entire premise: He is a Baptist minister and discredited child psychologist who believes you can literally spank the gay away. That Rekers enjoys a massage around his anus and a caressing of his penis from other other men should not discredit him as an expert witness on adoption or children; that would mean many perfectly qualified and skilled gay men would be unfit to testify about children simply because of their sexual interests.

What should make Rekers’ testimony viewed as complete bunk is because it is, quite literally, complete bunk.

Even Judge Cindy Lederman of Miami-Dade Circuit Court, who ruled Florida’s gay adoption law was unconstitional, declared Rekers’ testimony as not “credible” and was instead “motivated by his strong ideological and theological convictions that are not consistent with the science.” In Texas, Judge Timothy Fox of Pulaski County Circuit Court in 2004 “overturned the state law, and wrote that he found Dr. Rekers’ testimony ‘extremely suspect’ and that Dr. Rekers ‘was there primarily to promote his own personal ideology.’ That decision was unanimously affirmed by the state Supreme Court in 2006.”

Whatever cases Rekers testified in should be re-examined not because he’s been exposed for being a closeted anti-gay gay man. They should be re-examined because folks are finally listening to reason instead of monsters.

[NYT]

By:           editor editor
On:           May 19, 2010
Tagged: , , , , , ,

  • 7 Comments
    • jeffrey
      jeffrey

      Dr. “Long-Stroke Loving” Rekers’ court testimony is even being slammed by Ted “Hooker Hiring” Haggard, according to the NYT! [Do click through 2 the article], because Haggard takes great pains to say that unlike George, he himself didn’t attempt to influence court decisions !!

      You know you’re in a heap of hurt when even your fellow homo preacher buddies denounce you!

      Lost in the news cycle is that Rekers adopted a 16 year old male and that the state of Fla. where Rekers adopted him prohibits adoption by The Gays — the very issue that the Prudish Protestant Pastor Professor testified about in court.

      May 19, 2010 at 9:43 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • james_in_cambridge
      james_in_cambridge

      I enjoy watching these hypocrites outed so much I wish I could make a career out of it…it’s an orgasmic feeling. However, I wonder if this kind of hypocrisy is just part of the human condition or is there something about the times we’re living in? I assume sexual hypocrites are as old as society but what’s new is that no aspect of one’s personal life is off-limits these days, so they’re exposed more and more. If Queerty has any readers that are Sociologists, I would love to hear from them about what they think the answer is :)

      May 19, 2010 at 10:48 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Hyhybt
      Hyhybt

      @jeffrey: The other side *could* choose to look at it the other way, since his testimony agrees with their mindset: who better to know that gays have no business adopting children than a gay man with an adopted son? In that sense, you could as easily say it’s *increased* his credibility… except, of course, for the hypocrisy aspect.

      May 19, 2010 at 10:51 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jeffrey
      jeffrey

      @Hyhybt: I think you just made me laugh :-) If you were making a serious point I’m gonna apologize & say I missed it — not your fault, because I have “reading issues”!

      As a product of the foster care / adoption system I’m all for kids being adopted, even by “non-traditional families” i.e. single parents or same-sex couples, but I’m ardently opposed 2 adoption in cases where a kid might be exposed to prospective parents looking for rent money, sexual gratification or exploitation. That’s just EVIL showing its ugly face….

      I also can not pronounce your name: my closest approximation is “Hi Hi Be Tee” — is that correct?

      May 19, 2010 at 11:18 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Hyhybt
      Hyhybt

      @jeffrey: It was humor, but also an acknowledgement that there are a good many people on that side I wouldn’t put that sort of illogic past.

      Since you asked, my online name is an initialism, and was never intended to be pronounced. The best I’ve heard is something like “HIH-heh-but.” But I’d just gotten tired of typing it in all-caps. I got it in the late 90′s for a then-new site called “Customers Suck!”, and chose it because it reflected where I worked, yet was vague enough not to be identifying: Have You Had Your Break Today? And since I’m basically me wherever I go, I use the name everywhere; it’s generic enough to fit in on any board, and never taken, and why bother making up new names all the time and having to keep track of them all?

      May 19, 2010 at 11:57 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cheryl Wright = ZZZ's (John From England)
      Cheryl Wright = ZZZ's (John From England)

      @james_in_cambridge:

      Hmm, not sure it is that complex of an issue and you’ve in a way answered a bit of your own question.

      It’s human nature and centuries of behaviour that started with the influence of religion in society.

      People’s morals were being put to test and laid out to court within an ‘invisible’ but prominent stage-society.

      So things like Prostitution the oldest profession, men sleeping with men etc etc all became unfavourable with the rise of religions and so people suddenly had to lie about who or what they are.

      When Christianity grew out from being an underground cult during the Greek times, the reason it became so popular was because it was very much about fairness, which in turn questioned what the Royals could do with the law BUT at the same time it came with all these moralistic judgements. So people then saw the Greek society as this decadent, over sexual, barbaric world and Christianity was going to change that.

      People didn’t read the small print and wanted out of these Feudal societies.

      Unfortunately for them, when Christianity grew and people came back down to earth, they realised they actually had much less freedom to be and do what they instinctively wanted or had always done.

      You will see I use instinctively and that is because humans are animals. We’re sexual beings-we can be cruel, narcacisstic and the rest.

      Trying to stop that will only spell trouble and bring out the hypocrites.

      So really if we were more honest with each other about what we are, then we wouldn’t have the Rekers.

      May 21, 2010 at 11:08 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Taylor Siluwé
      Taylor Siluwé

      Hyhy & Jeffrey …

      I think you guys hit on something (however inadvertently) with his being a gay man who adopted a boy, yet actively tries to keep others from doing so.

      Question marks fly.

      Did he adopt this boy with intentions other than paternal? Does he believe all gay people are as tortured and twisted as he is? Where is this boy now? Hmmmm….

      I can only imagine what a sick hypocritical faux-religious zealot kook would do to a teenage boy in his charge.

      May 25, 2010 at 11:16 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.