Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
new hires

George Alan Rekers New Luggage Lifter: His Wife

Great news, for those of you who were worried a little prostitute scandal would get in the way of George Alan Rekers having someone to lug his sacks around airports! His wife has been enlisted for the job.

Rekers tells Christianity Today that he’s now being advised by a trio of Christian counselors and he’s “confessed to the Lord and to my family that I was unwise and wrong to hire this travel assistant after knowing him only one month before the trip and not knowing whether he was more than a person raised in a Christian home. I also confessed to the Lord and to my family the sin of thereby putting myself into a vulnerable situation where I tragically became subject to false allegations.”

He won’t be making that mistake again! Rekers says his wife is retiring soon and will begin accompanying him on trips — when his own sons can’t make it.

By:           editor editor
On:           May 13, 2010
Tagged: , , , , ,
  • 28 Comments
    • Cam
      Cam

      Funny, he keeps saying that the allegations are false and that he is going to hire a “Defamation attorney”…and yet he still hasn’t. If this story was actually false then he would have had an attorney filing injunctions the same day to force the paper to pull the story. Now he’s just looking pathetic.

      George, your anti-gay Christian organizations have already kicked you out, everybody knows you are lying, it’s time to just deal with it.

      May 13, 2010 at 10:14 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Geoff M
      Geoff M

      When will all these closeted, pious, hateful “christians”, remember the commandment “Thou Shalt Not Lie” when they ‘give in to their gay lust’……and start telling the truth?

      Isn’t that what a REAL Christian would do?

      May 13, 2010 at 10:19 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kieran
      Kieran

      Aha! So he is married to a WOMAN. Well there you go. That PROVES he’s not gay afterall. Case closed. LOL

      May 13, 2010 at 10:20 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • terrwill
      terrwill

      The old fart is desperately trying to do some damage control but it’s not working. Pathetic and laughable!

      May 13, 2010 at 10:26 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Anyway
      Anyway

      Keep digging, jackass.

      May 13, 2010 at 10:49 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jayson
      Jayson

      What’s really pathetic is his sick little hateful bunch of followers will beleive him. I guess praying to Jesus cures it all.

      May 13, 2010 at 11:48 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JamesStone
      JamesStone

      This self-loather needs to apologize to the gay community for the damage he has done to FAMILIES. George..I am so glad you are married..I am not even though my partner and I have been together monogamously for twenty years. Because of people listening to your “teachings” and taking them seriously..we are second class citizens..
      I would love to check out his computer’s hard drive!! I wonder what other sites he visits besides Rentboy.com??? I am thinking they are not sites like National Geographic!!!!!!!!

      May 13, 2010 at 11:51 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • dvlaries
      dvlaries

      Maybe he didn’t hire a defamation lawyer because Larry Craig called him up and told George how much a tab useless denial can ring up.

      May 13, 2010 at 12:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jeffree
      jeffree

      Someone scoop-happy investigative journalist needs to check out the following facts about the “wife” of Pastor Professor Alan Rekers:
      **Is she real or imaginary? (earlier reports suggested Rented-a-boy Rekers was divorced). That blow up doll doesn’t count, babe
      **What gender is s/he genetically? Which gender(s) does s/he claim in day to day life?
      **Can s/he perform the famous happy version of the “long stroke”?
      **Has s/he been lobotomized or forced-fed massive quantities of mood altering drugs? Or did s/he just take them volontarily after being forced to view George’s “atavistic moustache” & the scary scotum aftereffects of his hernia operations
      **If s/he exists, when is she going to sue the male-companion-seeking, boy-adopting, sac impaired, disgraced pastor ::::: –for every penny the courts allow?

      May 13, 2010 at 1:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      The article QUEERTY linked to claimed that “Rekers said he is being advised by a team of three Christian counselors. ‘And I have committed myself to ongoing meetings with an experienced pastor and counselor from my church, so I can more fully understand my weaknesses and prevent this kind of unwise decision-making in the future.'”

      Checklist to avoid “unwise” decisions:

      1. Set up a new email account and use IMAP4 to access it from a freshly purchased computer (a “netbook” is adequate).

      2. Use encrypted email, with newly created keys for the designated trip.

      3. Store the keys on a physically separate device (e.g., a USB flash drive).

      4. Make sure the rentboy knows how to protect his passwords.

      5. Use an anonymizer to hide your IP address.

      6. Make sure that any email is not stored as plain text.

      7. As soon as the email address is no longer needed, destroy the netbook’s hard disk or the netbook itself.

      May 13, 2010 at 2:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JamesStone
      JamesStone

      @B: OMG!! That is hysterical..but so true!!

      May 13, 2010 at 2:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      @B: Sounds like you’re an expert at this.

      May 13, 2010 at 2:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 1 · Cam wrote, “Funny, he keeps saying that the allegations are false and that he is going to hire a ‘Defamation attorney’…and yet he still hasn’t. If this story was actually false then he would have had an attorney filing injunctions the same day to force the paper to pull the story. Now he’s just looking pathetic.”

      To be fair, assuming Rekers is not a regular reader of the rag in question, he probably didn’t know about it until it was too late to pull the story, so an injunction isn’t likely to have done anything. If he has hired a lawyer, the lawyer is probably trying to verify what statements are defamatory. The courts have ruled that calling someone gay is not defamatory, but saying he hired a prostitute (as a prostitute) when it is not true is defamatory. To get that by a jury, however, Rekers would have to show that he did not contact Lucien via rentboy.com, at least knowingly, and that might not be easy to do. His best shot at it would be to have someone who would testify that he recommended Lucien and gave an email address or phone number – if such a person exists.

      There are a whole series of possibilities for a suit other than defamation – invasion of privacy, negligence, breach of contract, illegal access to email, etc. Aside from a criminal charge against the person who read Lucien’s email (assuming this was unauthorized), any civil action, while possible, is useful more as a threat. It is very difficult to get anything out of a 20 year old due to people at that age typically lacking much in the way of financial resources, and Lucien’s friend is probably about the same age. From a purely practical standpoint, it would take a while to find someone to name in such a lawsuit who actually has enough cash in the bank to be a viable target, and such a target may not exist.

      May 13, 2010 at 2:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • thedarkchariot
      thedarkchariot

      Ew…it’s one thing to have a rentboy or wife hoist your sack, but his own sons?

      May 13, 2010 at 2:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      No. 13 · B

      To be fair, assuming Rekers is not a regular reader of the rag in question, he probably didn’t know about it until it was too late to pull the story, so an injunction isn’t likely to have done anything.

      ________________-

      Hi “B” Good point, but I believe in the origional article it contained a denial. Also, it’s been quite some time now, and he is still the one responding to the press or making statemtns. as soon as somebody gets a lawyer, the first thing the lawyer does is shut them up. So if he’d even bothered to talk to one, he wouldn’t be putting out these statements, there would either be silence or the lawyer would be speaking.

      Lastly, after looking at the picture again….sheesh, that rentboy REALLY earned his money. Ugh.

      May 13, 2010 at 2:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • castaway
      castaway

      What’s this about a wife now? He must have gone to rentwife.com.
      Can we get a pic of the little woman?

      May 13, 2010 at 2:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 12 · Bill Perdue wrote, “@B: Sounds like you’re an expert at this.”

      Well, I am on the technology. The comment of course was meant as a joke that his “mistake” was in getting caught, so I deadpanned what he should have done, giving technically accurate advice.

      Just to give you some more details, it is sometimes possible to read data from a hard drive that has been reformatted, although it takes a lot of work, including disassembling the hard drive. When you overwrite data on a disk, the disk head does not precisely track where it was previously and there are some magnetic effects (e.g., hysteresis) that can be exploited as well, so you can find traces of the previous data that are not accessible when the disk is operated normally but which can be read with special equipment.

      May 13, 2010 at 3:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      In No 14, CAM wrote, “Hi ‘B’ Good point, but I believe in the origional article it contained a denial.”

      Did the reporters tell him where an article might appear or even that they were writing one? Did they give him any contact information or just ask questions to see his reaction?

      There’s a lot we don’t know and it is easy to make assumptions.

      May 13, 2010 at 3:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      No. 18 · B
      In No 14, CAM wrote, “Hi ‘B’ Good point, but I believe in the origional article it contained a denial.”

      Did the reporters tell him where an article might appear or even that they were writing one? Did they give him any contact information or just ask questions to see his reaction?

      There’s a lot we don’t know and it is easy to make assumptions.

      __________________

      B this is from the first article. And remember, New Times is a weekly so there was time before a paper like that goes to press.

      “”Reached by New Times before a trip to Bermuda, Rekers said he learned Lucien was a prostitute only midway through their vacation. “I had surgery,” Rekers said, “and I can’t lift luggage. That’s why I hired him.” (Medical problems didn’t stop him from pushing the tottering baggage cart through MIA.)

      Yet Rekers wouldn’t deny he met his slender, blond escort at Rentboy.com””

      —Thar article came out a week ago, more than enough time to get an attorney and go after the paper if the claims actually are false. None of that has been done.

      May 13, 2010 at 4:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      Regarding Number 19:

      “Reached by New Times” does not mean Rekers was told he was talking to New Times reporters or that he remembered the name of the paper after the interview. Nor did he know what they were going to write (why tell him when you are trolling for information as telling him would have made it easier for him to generate a better excuse). His ability to push a cart at the end of the trip does not mean he could do that at the start, and pushing doesn’t use the same muscles as lifting. A lack of denial doesn’t prove much either as he was probably concentrating on how to mitigate any bad PR, so it wouldn’t be surprising if some insinuations weren’t noticed.

      So, I think people are jumping to conclusions, but that doesn’t mean I trust any of Rekers’ excuses either – on face value, they seem pretty lame.

      May 13, 2010 at 7:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jeffree
      jeffree

      If there is a wife, she might be justified in contacting an attorney as well! She may be aware of details about Professor George Longstroke that might make divorce a serious consideration.

      Despite his posturing about pursuing a lawyer, his inconsistent statements seem to indicate that he’s not yet gotten good advice on PR or legal recourse.

      That none of his main organizational affilliations have provided legal help so far (he££, they’re practically scrubbing his existance out of their records!) means that he’s alone now except for the Liberty lawyers who so far as I can tell haven’t done much yet.

      Shout outs to CAM and B for their great, clear posts. Thanks!

      May 13, 2010 at 8:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      No. 20 · B
      Regarding Number 19:

      “Reached by New Times” does not mean Rekers was told he was talking to New Times reporters or that he remembered the name of the paper after the interview. Nor did he know what they were going to write (why tell him when you are trolling for information as telling him would have made it easier for him to generate a better excuse).
      ___________________________________

      You are REALLY stretching here. you seem to be ignoring the part in the answer when it says “REkers said he learned of Lucians profession…

      So people are posting quotes here, you are missing then and you keep trying to find any excuse that this could have been something different. It has been over a week. If this was a legitimately false story, Rekers would already have a lawyer taking care of it. But you keep right on defending him if you like.

      May 14, 2010 at 12:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 22 · Cam wrote, “You are REALLY stretching here. you seem to be ignoring the part in the answer when it says “REkers said he learned of Lucians profession…”

      Rekers said he learned of Lucien’s profession during the trip, not before it. I.e., he told the reporters he did not hire Lucien as a rentboy but as a “traveling companion” to (presumably) help with the luggage and provide other legal services.

      He had no idea what they were going to write – from the information he gave them, a story could have been written in any number of ways including dropping it altogether on the grounds that there was no “news”.

      The issue is that the quotes people are posting don’t tell you what actually went on in the interview. When the paper reports that “the Miami New Times” contacted Rekers, that doesn’t mean that Rekers remembered the name at the end of the interview or was even told that it was the Miami New Times (a reporter could even have just said hello and given his first name only), nor whether an article would actually be printed, nor that Rekers knew that the paper would print something derogatory (whether true to not). So, the idea that he would plausibly have contacted a lawyer before the article appeared to get an injunction is a mere conjecture with no substantial evidence.

      May 14, 2010 at 1:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 22 · Cam : .. just to add some more information. Some of us have been interviewed by the press. What you see them say you said (including statements in quotes) is frequently a paraphrase, in some cases chosen to match the story the reporter wanted to write. And I don’t mean the “alternate press” but mainstream newspapers, where the standards are higher.

      When you’ve had that experience, you tend to be very skeptical of what you read in the press and whether that can be used to make the sort of inferences people are trying to make here.

      May 14, 2010 at 2:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      No. 24 · B
      No. 22 · Cam : .. just to add some more information. Some of us have been interviewed by the press. What you see them say you said (including statements in quotes) is frequently a paraphrase, in some cases chosen to match the story the reporter wanted to write. And I don’t mean the “alternate press” but mainstream newspapers, where the standards are higher.

      When you’ve had that experience, you tend to be very skeptical of what you read in the press and whether that can be used to make the sort of inferences people are trying to make here.
      ___________________

      Nope, he was contacted by the press and asked about the kid. Please do not try to pretend that just being asked about a male prostitute (Remeber, he says that by this time he knew about Lucians Profession) wouldn’t have sent any closet case running for a lawyer. And again, anybody could have gotten an attorney and gone after the paper by this time. the attorney would be a spokesperson and dealint with the situation. That is not the case, Rekers keeps just putting out comments himself which means he hasn’t hired anybody. What you seem to be doing is trying to find ANY way that this could possibly all be a lie and a set up. What I am telling you is that if this was false, he would already have an attorney and be going after the paper, the reporters, and the hooker. That has not happened. You say that you were interviewed by the press. My, how fancy you are…well many of us live in the real world of the press, of lawyers, and public figures and know that when something like this happens, and is false, it takes about 2 hours to find and secure a lawyer, and to set them on the offending press like dogs. If there was any chance this was actually false that would have been done. End of story.

      May 14, 2010 at 2:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • romeo
      romeo

      The only person that set-up Rekers was Rekers. Him facing his hypocrisy is not his problem; he needs to seriously face his stupidity, accept it and keep his mouth shut from now on. He’s not going to be able to rehabilitate himself in the media. I can tell; he’s been one too many.

      May 14, 2010 at 3:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Hyhybt
      Hyhybt

      Good, now his wife can keep a close eye on him.

      May 15, 2010 at 12:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 25 · Cam wrote, “Nope, he was contacted by the press and asked about the kid. Please do not try to pretend that just being asked about a male prostitute (Remeber, he says that by this time he knew about Lucians Profession) wouldn’t have sent any closet case running for a lawyer. And again, anybody could have gotten an attorney and gone after the paper by this time. the attorney would be a spokesperson and dealint with the situation. That is not the case, Rekers keeps just putting out comments himself which means he hasn’t hired anybody.”

      First, if you listen to a recording of the very short conversation he had with two reporters, he seemed initially quite confused about what the discussion was going to be about, and his speach sounded a bit slurred (the reason is not clear, but he was probably not functioning at 100% at the time). He probably thought he was being asked about a book, his testimony on something, etc. Then they sprang the name of the male prostitute on him. He seemed a bit flustered, gave an explanation (only found out during the trip, needed someone to help with luggage), and the reporters then thanked him and ended the call. You are assuming he actually remembered the name of the paper. He may have thought they weren’t going to print anything and didn’t do anything as a result.

      “What you seem to be doing is trying to find ANY way that this could possibly all be a lie and a set up. What I am telling you is that if this was false, he would already have an attorney and be going after the paper, the reporters, and the hooker.”

      We’ll see if he actually goes after them, but a lawsuit for libel or defamation is not always in your best interest even if you’d win (and you can lose even if the statements about you are false). Read http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html#4 for an explanation.

      May 19, 2010 at 7:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

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



  • QUEERTY DAILY

     




    FROM AROUND THE WEB

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