Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
 

Sam Adams Is Here to Stay

26portland_spanEmbattled Portland Mayor Sam Adams said on Sunday via his website (and confirmed by the AP), that he will not be resigning after facing harsh criticism from the Portland community for an affair he had with an 18-year-old intern– an affair he denied throughout his campaign.

If you ask us, Sam Adams is making the right decision.

So long as Adams did nothing illegal, he should remain in public office. He’s not in the position to make this argument, but we will: Admitting to a sexual affair with an 18-year-old who is the same gender as you is infinitely harder than admitting to a heterosexual affair with an 18-year old; and there aren’t that many straight politicians who would be willing forthcoming about that, either.

Should Adams have had the relationship with someone who considered him his mentor? No. It was arrogant and reckless for him to have done so. And the mayor has said so. He has admitted he lied to the people of Portland. The question now, is: What’s best for Portland? If Adams were to step down, it would be thrown into crisis. With the economic stimulus plan promising money to cities that can demonstrate actionable projects, now is not the time for Portland will be without a leader.

The best way for him to make up for what he did is to serve the city of Portland. The city elected him because they believe he’s the best person for the job. Even if his constituents aren’t ready to put it all behind him, Adams must move past his own personal scandals and failings and focus now on the job he was hired to do.

Watch the AP report on Sam Adams decision to keep his office:

By:           Japhy Grant
On:           Jan 26, 2009
Tagged: , , ,

  • 61 Comments
    • Peter
      Peter

      Sounds ok to me.

      Jan 26, 2009 at 9:43 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      Excellent.

      Gay men who join in the choir of christist vermin criticizing sex between gay men are unprincipled.

      There is nothing scandalous about this relationship. Nothing at all. Or about lying to protect themselves. GLBT people are forced to lie all the time, to step in and out of the closet for personal or job security. It’s nothing new and nothing to be ashamed of.

      Jan 26, 2009 at 10:01 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sean
      Sean

      If he feels he can be effective in his position moving forward, more power to him.

      Jan 26, 2009 at 10:15 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • James
      James

      I’m glad and hope people can move on from this once it’s shown he didn’t do anything illegal, just a little stupid as we all do occasionally.

      Jan 26, 2009 at 10:19 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Buddy
      Buddy

      @Bill Perdue: Bill, I’m just curious. How is it that you support that openly gay politicians are allowed to lie and keep their job, but closeted ones like Richard Curtis (http://www.queerty.com/gay-scandal-squeezes-richard-curtis-out-20071031/#comment-26138) aren’t? Shouldn’t the concept of private lives being private apply to both equally, regardless of whether we agree with their politics?

      Jan 26, 2009 at 10:22 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • brcksvg
      brcksvg

      The most disappointing aspect of this entire incident has been watching the disturbing contortions of logic Adams’ supporters have gone through to try to categorize people’s reactions to the affair as anti-gay and labelling those in the LGBT community who are angry with Adams as turn coat hypocrites or Uncle Toms.

      I could give a flying flip if Adams had weekly orgies with his entire intern staff. If it wasn’t illegal, it wasn’t illegal. But to pretend that anyone disturbed by Adams questionable personal ethics in having an affair with an 18 year old is a puritanical monster is disengenuous.

      Secondly, people have a right to be pissed about the fact that he outright lied to his constituents faces, regardless of how common it is for one to lie or not. Moreover, the LGBT community have more than enough reason to be livid with Adams for manipulating them into coming to his defense in what he had characterized as an anti-gay attack on his reputation, when his accusers were in fact telling the truth.

      Again, none of that is illegal, but it’s more than enough reason for people to be angry and to want to express that anger. And lastly, there is still the question of whether Adams or his staff did in fact break the law in hiring the journalist investigating Adams’ and Breedlove’s relationship. It may, as well, prove to have been perfectly legal, but to pretend that there were never any questions of legality and that all opposition to Adams is coming from some anti-gay christian arena is a blantant distortion of the truth.

      The idea that we as a community should support lying, ethically challenged, possibly criminal politicians just because they are gay as well is the most repugnant idea I’ve heard in a long time.

      Jan 26, 2009 at 10:31 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jababe
      jababe

      I am so glad he came to this conclusion, and it’s about time that Dems start having some balls. Rethugs wouldn’t think twice about resigning from a position of power simply because they had LEGAL sex. Shit, they don’t think twice about resigning over ILLEGAL overtures of sex. He didn’t solicit some child over the internet, or go to some public bathroom for some anonymous ass. The young man knew what he was getting into, and refuses to be labled as a victim. Adams apologized to his constituents for being dishonest, which is the just thing to have done. I am sure it is embarassing for him and his partner, but it was in no way illegal, period. I don’t believe he would stay in the position if he was a true pedophile, because the spotlight would be too glaring. Now he has to work twice as hard to earn the people’s trust back, and perhaps that will work out to be the silver lining of this passing cloud.

      Jan 26, 2009 at 10:58 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      @Buddy: Buddy, let me try to satisfy your curiosity.

      Curtis was/is a closeted anti-GLBT scumwad. He voted agianst us, as do many other Republicans Democrats in the legislative closet. He was also charged with embezzlement. He’s the personification of internalized homophobia.

      Adams only political sin to date, although it’s a whooper, is that he chooses to be part of a right centerist party run by bigots like Obama, Biden, the Clintons and Barbara Mikulski. Biden, who’s not gay and Mikulski voted for DOMA. And I forgot to mention another anti-GLBT politician named Barney Frank of ENDA gutting fame.

      Jan 26, 2009 at 11:08 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • blake
      blake

      @Bill Perdue:

      Bill,

      It’s a bit much to call Frank anti-GLBT. Frank felt that the only way to get the ENDA bill passed was to focus on sexual orientation because of the opposition to protections for transgender/gender identity in Congress.

      Obviously, the best bill would have covered everyone. Transgendered people feared that without an inclusive bill, they would be left hanging. But wouldn’t some kind of protection been better than nothing? The point became moot when it became apparent when Pres. George W. Bush declared that he would veto ENDA and not enough votes existed to overturn the veto.

      Look back at the Civil Rights movement and the mixed-blessing/watered-down laws that passed prior to Johnson/Kennedy Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts. Would having a version of ENDA that helped a large chunk of the GLBT community been a terrible stop along the way towards full equality for sexual/gender minorities?

      Jan 26, 2009 at 11:38 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Buddy
      Buddy

      @Bill Perdue: So basically, if you don’t agree with their politics, they don’t deserve privacy?

      Not that I disagree that Curtis is/was and anti-GLBT scumwad. I just think we should hold those who vote for us to the same standard as those who vote against us. Otherwise we get into this double standard/hypocrisy place.

      In my opinion, Sam Adams demonstrated amazingly poor judgment – his own staff were warning him off Breedlove, with whom Sam was necking in the City Hall washroom (while Beau was 17) – and he trashed the reputation of another gay politician with bald-faced lies. I don’t see him deserving any more slack than I would give a man like Curtis, no matter with whom he sleeps or for what he votes.

      Jan 26, 2009 at 11:42 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      @Buddy:
      Buddy, you seem to want to make some point here that has nothing to do with what i said. I am not a Democrat or a Republican because they’re both parties run by bigots. Obama is a bigot and
      McCain is a bigot.

      My objection to this is it’s an attack on sex between men.

      If you want to whine about double standards for closeted Repuplicans do it on your own dime. Don’t involve me.

      Jan 26, 2009 at 11:54 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ian James Roberts
      Ian James Roberts

      “Should Adams have had the relationship with someone who considered him his mentor?”

      It was made clear last week that the relationship between Beau and Sam Adams was never that of a “mentorship”. They only made it seem that way so that they could spend time together without suspicion. It still isn’t the smartest thing they could have done, but Beau was never truthfully in any kind of subordinate or mentoree position to Sam.

      Jan 26, 2009 at 11:57 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chris
      Chris

      @Bill Perdue: Bill Purdue: Gay men who join in the choir of victim-obsessed vermin upholding the sanctity of gay leaders’ right to lie to their supporters and potential constuents are unprincipled.

      There is nothing scandalous about this relationship. No one forced Adams to lie. We would have supported him, and those outside our gay community would have applauded his courage to speak honestly in the first place. He is ashamed of the blight he has placed on our community, and it’s irresponsible for anyone to tell him he shouldn’t be. Sex? Fine. Deception? Wrong.

      Jan 26, 2009 at 12:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • flightoftheseabird
      flightoftheseabird

      @Ian James Roberts: I am glad you made that clear. That is what my impression was upon reading the story. I thought Beau was a legislative intern and Sam was on the County Commission or City Council or something.

      Jan 26, 2009 at 12:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      @blake:

      Blake you’re a bit naive. As Deepthroat said “Follow the money”.

      1) Frank is going to run for the Senate. He‘ll need big bucks, like the money Obama took from Wall Street looters prior to e he championing giving them $700 billions in handouts.

      2) The only people who profited from this were the Chamber of Commerce bigots who make huge profits paying us less and the gutter version of ENDA allows them to do so.

      3) The best legal minds our movement possesses at NCLR, Lambda Legal and the ACLU say that when we lost inclusion the bill was gutted. You, Frank and Chamber of Commerce say not.

      Jan 26, 2009 at 12:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ian James Roberts
      Ian James Roberts

      @ Chris:
      We would have supported him, and those outside our gay community would have applauded his courage to speak honestly in the first place.

      We have no way of knowing how this would have played out had Sam been honest from the beginning. While it’s nice to think that people would have been accepting and thankful that he just told the truth, there is no proof of that. I have a feeling it would have played out just as Sam thought it would. People wouldn’t have understood, people would have thought him a child molester, and no one would believe that their relationship started after Beau turned 18. If that sounds similar to what is going on now, that isn’t a coincidence. Unfortunately, now he has to also tack on the lying bit to this situation.

      Jan 26, 2009 at 12:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jeff
      Jeff

      At least the AP report didn’t dwell on the fact that it was a *GAY* relationship, as the media so often does, and instead treated it as a typical political sex “scandal.” I’m glad this situation seems like it’ll blow over, since the uproar about it was pretty ridiculous.

      Jan 26, 2009 at 12:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chris
      Chris

      @Chris: It has been the right thing to do for our Portland community leaders to hold Sam accountable. It’s important to stand up for principles of character as much as we stand up for our human rights. However, I personally don’t hold for demonizing the man and will support him as our mayor should he continue in this position. I believe there is the opportunity for him (and others) to learn from this mistake and be more careful and responsible in the future. I believe Mayor Adams should be held accountable for his behavior, but forgiven for human error.

      Jan 26, 2009 at 12:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chris
      Chris

      @brcksvg: I would like to commend you on the logic and accuracy of your statements. Thank you for pointing out how ridiculous it is to blame Sam’s problem on the “anti-gay religious agenda.” People in my church are divided in their opinions about this issue, as are people in our gay community, as our people outside the gay community. Why do some people oppose gay bashing in the same breath as they bash Christians? Who’s the hypocrite in that situation?

      Jan 26, 2009 at 12:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • blake
      blake

      @Bill Perdue:

      Bill,

      You’re a jerk. Nowhere in my comment did I attack you. Did you bother to read my comment in detail?

      If you have points that you want to make about the ENDA bill, make them instead of assuming that I know and support any kind legislation that would economically injure anyone. My comment was on the lack of inclusion of trangendered protections.

      Also, by your own admission, Frank was not a bigot but a user.

      Feh, I’m done with you.

      Jan 26, 2009 at 12:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Buddy
      Buddy

      @Bill Perdue: Bill, I’m sure you don’t want to be involved; it can be uncomfortable having your public positions dissected. :)

      You unfortunately miss the point of my comment: I’m not fighting for the rights of closeted republicans to be treated equally, I’m fighting for the rights of openly-gay politicians to be treated equally, to be held to the same standard the gay “community” holds our enemies.

      I’m sorry I had to use you as the sterling example of hypocrisy, but the incompatibility of your response to Adams vs Curtis was too tempting a target. And of course your dismissal of gay critics of Adams as “unprincipled” only kindled the fire.

      Jan 26, 2009 at 12:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jaroslaw
      Jaroslaw

      Buddy (& Blake?) It is not that we have to agree with people’s politics to allow them a private life. It is that you CANNOT be a closet homo of either party AND pass anti-gay legislation. If you are in the closet and minding your own business, I don’t care.

      BRCKSVG – Lying about a person’s sex life, unfortunately, is a requirement in this society. I don’t know why people are so bent out of shape about a 41 year old and an 18 year old. Has anyone looked at Playboy or other skin magazines? They DO NOT showcase 40 year olds. They showcase 18-25 year olds. Millions of these magazines are sold, and my guess is the vast majority of purchasers are older than 25.

      The main point though is that lying about sex is NOT the same thing as say: lying about weapons of mass destruction and having a war that cost billions of dollars and thousands of lives… or is it to you?

      Politicians should not be asked about their LEGAL sex lives unless there is an illegal component to it, such as rewarding a job, or a contract or it was non-consensual.

      Jan 26, 2009 at 1:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chris
      Chris

      @Ian James Roberts: “We have no way of knowing how this would have played out had Sam been honest from the beginning.”

      Yes, you’re right. Sam’s fears were understandable. However, I think that what is most upsetting to his supporters and those who voted for him is not the sexual relationship, per se, but the feeling of misplaced trust, given that he literally asked people (and the press) to vouch for his claim that he “did not have sex with a teenager.” My thought is that though his detractors would certainly have had more to dish out against him, the intelligent people who supported him and voted for him would not have forfeited their support over it. Of course, neither you nor I can say what would have happened, but I agree with your last statement. Now, he has not only the initial situation to deal with, but also his disingenuous response as well.

      Jan 26, 2009 at 1:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • PearlsBeforeSwine
      PearlsBeforeSwine

      Lets make a few alterations to a quote you posted today concerning Ted Haggard.

      ‘Technically, legally, they were both adults. Psychologically and emotionally, Sam Adams was dramatically more powerful. … By definition, any sexual contact between a 17 year old intern and 43 year old City Commissioner is inherently abusive and manipulative.’

      Jan 26, 2009 at 1:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ChristopherM
      ChristopherM

      @Bill Perdue:

      Bill, you and I don’t agree much of the time, but the ENDA pushed through by Frank is virtually worthless because of the loopholes left open by the removal of gender expression. Much of homophobia is based on gender expectations anyway, and Frank’s actions to remove trans protection blew the bill wide open for any of us who don’t conform to gender expectations, whether we identify as trans or not.

      Jan 26, 2009 at 2:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bob
      Bob

      Lovely. We have just handed the Republicans this mayoral post on a silver platter in 2012, or sooner if they recall Adams. And it’s not about his having sex with the intern; it’s about his campaign of lies about it, a campaign that included urging the intern to lie as well. I’m sorry, but that flagrant and coordinated campaign of dishonesty is troubling to me, and to a lot of other people.

      Jan 26, 2009 at 2:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chris
      Chris

      @Jaroslaw: “Politicians should not be asked about their LEGAL sex lives unless there is an illegal component to it, such as rewarding a job, or a contract or it was non-consensual.”

      The legality components you bring up are exactly the grounds that make it is reasonable for a politician to be asked about his or her sex life if an accusation has been brought forward.

      Therefore, people in politics have decisions to make. One: refrain from potentially questionable situations so that this doesn’t come up at all (i.e. don’t make out with a 17-year-old in the restroom at city hall). Two, take your chances with propriety, just make sure to keep it legal, stand by your decision, and be honest about it. Three, let yourself get into what will obviously be a potentially sticky situation and then lie about it. Sam says he made at least one wrong decision.

      As a teacher, I’ve experienced being backed into a corner regarding sexual orientation. I feel that the priority at this time is to fight for basic equality based on sexual and gender orientation rather than fighting for the right for teachers and politicians to have sex with teenagers and rationalizing their need to lie about it. It might be fine, but it doesn’t help our causes at this time.

      Jan 26, 2009 at 2:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jaroslaw
      Jaroslaw

      @#19, Chris – why do people bash Christians in the same breath they oppose Gaybashing? Easy – hypocrisy. While it is not acceptable to me to “bash” anyone, telling the truth is not bashing.

      America’s puritanical attitude about sex, (and homophobic attitudes) if not originating in religion, are certainly fostered and promoted by religions, notably the Christian religion since that is the majority here, both numerically and historically.

      It is hypocrisy to harp on Adams’ sexual “sins” and ignore hundreds of thousands of unwed births annually. Or the fact the USA manipulates third world countries into poverty through the world bank and IMF, allows the sale through our corporations of plants that bear non-functioning seeds that force the poor to buy new seed to grow food to eat. While many churches and religions do good things, our Christian culture doesn’t follow its own rules. On top of all the things I mentioned, which is only a very partial list, we also allow the charging of interest which is something absolutely, unequivocably prohibited in the NEW TESTAMENT. I wish Churches would show so much political enthusiasm for things like this and helping the poor like they do about squashing same sex marriage in California!

      Jan 26, 2009 at 2:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      @Chris: These discussions are not really for churchy types.

      Sanctimonious moralizing has nothing to do with the question at hand. It’s a question of defending sex between men, not channeling Roy Cohn’s prissiness.

      Jan 26, 2009 at 3:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • oakhomey
      oakhomey

      @brcksvg: Seconded.

      Jan 26, 2009 at 3:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jaroslaw
      Jaroslaw

      #27 Chris – I think we have more than one Chris here – I’m not rationalizing lying in the sense that I think it is fine and dandy to lie. What I have been trying to point out for days now is that lies about sex and lies about war are VERY different things.

      To SPECULATE or operate on a rumor that he had sex with a 17 year old (and it has been pointed out by others that most 17 year olds are perfectly capable of deciding they want to have sex) is NOT grounds to ask personal questions. What is the point of such questions by the media? There is absolutely no proof that someone who lies about their sex life in a situation like this is unethical in all their business dealing, they are not incompetent etc.

      And even the people who are “okay” with Gay sex keep talking about questionable judgement in having sex with such an age difference – no one yet has told me what is wrong with it.

      Of course Sam admitted making a wrong decision. Has our present society and political climate and the power of the religious right allowed him otherwise?

      So, Chris, perhaps we just disagree, but so far, for reasons I can’t understand.

      Jan 26, 2009 at 3:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chris
      Chris

      @Jaroslaw: “Chris – why do people bash Christians in the same breath they oppose Gaybashing? Easy – hypocrisy. While it is not acceptable to me to “bash” anyone, telling the truth is not bashing.”

      It looks as if you didn’t follow the thread back to the comment in question.

      Bill Purdue opened with “Gay men who join in the choir of christist vermin criticizing sex between gay men are unprincipled.” There were no Christian anti-gay statements made in the article or in the one comment before him to prompt this vitriol.

      To which BRCKSVG responded, “to pretend that…all opposition to Adams is coming from some anti-gay christian arena is a blatant distortion of the truth.” Exactly.

      Bill Purdue was not “telling the truth.” He was not only bashing Christians but also saying that all gay men who voice their disagreement with Sam Adam’s decisions must be criticizing gay male sex like those “christist vermin.” Obviously from the posts here, not all gay males who disagree with Sam Adam’s actions are Christ-following homophobes. That’s not “the truth.”

      Some Christians say and do wrong and/or unfair things. Some gay people say and do wrong and/or unfair things. Lumping any group all together and bashing them is not the same as “telling the truth” about what they have said or done.

      My point was/is not that some Christians or groups haven’t done anything wrong, but that indiscriminate bashing is just as wrong or, as you so accurately put it, just another form of hypocrisy.

      Jan 26, 2009 at 4:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chris
      Chris

      @Jaroslaw: Jaroslaw, we certainly don’t disagree about the lies told about the war. I’m right there with you on that one. It drives me crazy that one relative of mine had no opposition to Bush’s deception in that situation, yet thinks the world is coming to an end when it comes to any rational discussion about homosexuality or abortion. (I know that’s not an issue in this thread, but just to clarify that we are not in disagreement about Bush’s lies.)

      Jan 26, 2009 at 4:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      @Buddy: Your claim to want evenhanded treatment is as blindingly wrong as your idea that there are no differences between Breedlove and Adams on the one hand and Larry Craig and your pal Curtis on the other.

      That is a truly breathtaking failure of analysis.

      Jan 26, 2009 at 4:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chris
      Chris

      @Jaroslaw: Jaroslaw, I don’t disagree that Sam’s sex life shouldn’t be pried into. It doesn’t have any bearing on his ability to do his job. I do agree with him that it wasn’t a wise thing to do. I also agree with him that this has potentially changed a victory for the gay community into a potential setback. It’s not that he didn’t want to talk about this private relationship (he shouldn’t have to if he didn’t do anything illegal) that bothers me, or his poor judgment (poor judgement, not “sin”) in doing it, but rather how he got people on his side against anyone who would have the audacity to accuse him of having sex with a teenager. That’s not just a lie to cover up, but verges on manipulation. As I’ve said before, though, I think it’s right that he’s been held accountable, but not that he should be vilified or demonized.

      As to any debate about ages of consent for sex, that’s a whole other story that I haven’t put a lot of thought into at this point, so I wouldn’t go into disagreeing with anyone here about it at this point.

      One other thing. Thank you for discussing all of this rationally and respectfully.

      Jan 26, 2009 at 4:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Konrad
      Konrad

      I’m usually willing to throw a politican overboard if he does something that makes him no longer useful to us. But I am starting to re-consider with Adams. Setting aside the rumors that Adams is still lying and the kid was 17 at first, if he was 18 and of legal age, there is no crime. Further, let’s stop calling him an intern. It leaves the impression he was Adams’ intern. He wasn’t even a city council intern or working in the city of Portland. He was a Republican intern in Salem, OR. Had he been under Adams’ supervision, there is a “loco parentis” issue, but that was not the case.

      Second, I will admit when this story was first reported I assumed it did so because the kid made an assertion he was taken advantage of. 18 is the legal age of consent in Oregon, but adults still have to use good judgement and just not pounce on someone on their 18th birthday. (And it is fair to use an example of bad judgement when voting for politicans). But the kid is not claiming he regrets the incident and it seems it was he who came on to Adams.

      I guess he was still in hgh school, but it all seems to be a little murkey. I’m giving the Mayor a pass for now.

      Jan 26, 2009 at 4:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jaroslaw
      Jaroslaw

      #35 – OK, just to make sure I understand you – a guy is by all accounts a dedicated, smart, competent public servant. He’s got 20 years in – let me tell you right now I work in government and people with pure and holy intentions who don’t know the ropes GET NOTHTING DONE.

      So, some opponent wants to tar and smear him by saying he had sex with a minor and he (your words)

      he got people on his side against anyone who would have the audacity to accuse him of having sex with a teenager. That’s not just a lie to cover up, but verges on manipulation.

      This opponent almost derails him on a lie – Oh gosh there’s that word again. The opponent lies and I haven’t heard one word on any of these blogs about that.

      I can’t say it any other way – it was unfortunate Sam lied, but I can see why he did. He shouldn’t lose everything he worked for because some people disapprove of intergenerational sex which is not illegal. Of course he lied and of course he’s now apoligizing.

      Jan 26, 2009 at 5:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chris
      Chris

      @Jaroslaw: @Jaroslaw: #37 It makes sense what you say about Mayor Adams having the experience and knowledge to get the job done, as well as the fact that he has been a dedicated, smart, competent public servant. I don’t think there is a correlation one way or another with pureness and holiness in regards to knowing the ropes and getting things done. However, steering wide of obvious potential scandal can be helpful. This whole situation must be particularly frustrating for someone who works in government and knows Sam’s potential for benefitting this city.

      The fact that no one has brought up his opponent’s potential lie doesn’t lead to the conclusion that anyone feels that Sam’s opponent should not be held accountable. I imagine there have been strong threads about that. It certainly made/makes me mad. However, the fact that his opponent was underhanded, a jerk to bring it up, and probably lying doesn’t vindicate Sam now. The fact that Sam now admits to lying leads some people to believe he may have lied about the age, too, even though I choose to give him the benefit of the doubt. Also, I think he has agreed that the intergenerational sex was not appropriate to the time and place and his position and goals.

      I don’t think Mayor Adams stands to lose everything just because “some people disapprove of intergenerational sex.” The intergenerational aspect is just one aspect among many that leads this issue to be a problem for our mayor.

      Again, it makes sense that this whole situation must be extremely frustrating for those who believe he’s the right man for the job.

      Jan 26, 2009 at 6:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cody
      Cody

      I agree.

      He did make a mistake. But I am curious what he will do as a mayor. I think after this whole “scandal” he will only become a better mayer, or atleast I hope that is the case…..

      Jan 26, 2009 at 6:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chris
      Chris

      @Bill Perdue: You said to me, “These discussions are not really for churchy types. Sanctimonious moralizing has nothing to do with the question at hand. It’s a question of defending sex between men, not channeling Roy Cohn’s prissiness.”

      If your goal is to make me feel uncomfortable and afraid to voice my opinion here, as a Christian, you are successful. I am as scared listening to you and your rhetoric as I have been all my life as a gay person when I’ve heard people, in person or in a forum, make fun of and malign homosexuals.

      Fortunately I have been emboldened to participate here because of the rational voices. I thank them for tempering the fear that your prejudice and hatred instills. There are people with your type of attitude in Christian churches, too, and in a corrupt segment of Republican leaders and Right-Wing money makers who bring a bad name to Christianity itself. Yet more and more gay people are coming to know that those are the LOUDEST, not the majority. As a gay person, I can and have walked into mainstream Christian churches and found strength in the rational voices, just as I find strength in the rational voices here.

      Being gay, not closeted, and happily partnered, I am hardly sanctimonious about male to male sex and have made no judgments regarding sex in this thread.

      Obviously you persist in this type of vitriol, name calling, and misinterpretation. Fortunately, you have already been very well put in your place by several others in this thread (Buddy, Blake, and BRCKSVG). I regret that my first response to you was to mimic your own expression; as I see that their direct and sometimes humorous response is much more effective.

      Jan 26, 2009 at 7:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • apetickler
      apetickler

      I went jogging on Friday night and I saw signs all over town that said “Sam is human,” “Portland can forgive,” etc. My friends all went to a big rally to support him.

      Hey! People! The guy screwed up! I didn’t want him to resign, but I didn’t feel like cheering his name, either.

      The reason this bugs me is that it demonstrates that Sam is a character politician. Regardless of how much we agree with him on policy issues, regardless of how effective a leader we think he can be, we seem to vote for him, ultimately, because we find him charming. The same reason people supported Sarah Palin.

      We see more and more of this emphasis on personality in politics. Sure, it helps a leader to be charismatic, but I read more and more in the newspaper from so-called average Americans openly acknowledging that they support someone because they like them, not because they agree with or respect them. That’s how we ended up with W.

      Honk if you love the Wonk!

      Jan 26, 2009 at 9:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      @Chris: christ, er, Chris, give it a rest and climb down off that cross.

      You christers are not oppressed, you’re the oppressors and the main source of bigotry, discrimination and violence against the GLBT communities. Your rush to be judgmental regarding the relationship between Adams and Breedlove is a prime example.

      To ‘protect’ yourself and cover your ass at work you join in condemning sex between these two men.

      Superstition, aka religion, is the main enemy of LGBT equality. That is true in spite of the fact that a tiny minority of christer bigots no longer want to roast us. The only difference between most christer bigots and their cousins the ayatollahs is in their ability to harm GLBT folks, not their intent to do harm us. It’s too bad if that offends you.

      Jan 26, 2009 at 10:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      @ChristopherM: ChristopherM – I agree with you about gender expression and Frank’s deliberate and bigoted exclusion of transgendered and transsexual people. They unquestionably suffer the most from discrimination and Frank’s betrayal means they they’ll continue to do so. But that’s only part of the story.

      I had to wade through tons of legalese, not my language of choice, to figure out the key differences between the real ENDA and the version supported by Frank as he played lap dog for the Chamber of Commerce. The original ENDA was a huge improvement over the deliberately enfeebled anti-discrimination bills of the 70’s in that it vastly opened up the ability of folks to sue. The original bills, and Frank’s gutted version of ENDA severely limit who can sue and why. That’s why there was across the board support for the original ENDA from minority groups, unions, women’s groups and etc. The prospect of losing money in big lawsuits is a powerful deterrent to bigots.

      In addition, Frank accepted each and every reactionary amendment offered by his Republican cousins, including one that said that Franks eviscerated bill couldn’t be used to contradict DOMA!

      So Blake was wrong across the board. Franks ENDA was a case of one step forward and two steps backward and a clear example of pandering to bigots, although in this case to bigot businesses and managers who make big profits underpaying us. Franks ENDA isn’t a little step forward as Blake claims; it’s a big step back to the 1970’s.

      Blake was wrong and Deepthroat, as always, was right on the money.

      Jan 26, 2009 at 10:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jaroslaw
      Jaroslaw

      Chris #38 – I thank you for being respectful in your disagreement, but I can’t let you say “there is no correlation…” I’m not saying all people in government or corporations are dishonest but if you think you can be 100% true to your principles, you are naive. It is just not possible. I have been in government service for 23 years, in several different departments, volunteered for things that got me to the capital and I have talked with many more people than most. To prove my point – every elected official I know says they work for the people right? Then how come the laws are rigged so that 95% of the money belongs to 5% of the population? How come credit cards are allowed to charge 32% interest? How come insurance companies can exclude pre-existing conditions? If you’re sick don’t you need insurance? How come with all the decades of talk about child support, we only have agreements with Six, yes only SIX, countries? The previous governor left here with a pension as a house member, a pension as a senator and a pension as governor. Do you think “the people” think he needs THREE pensions? And he now represents a trade group for manufacturers. I’m sure him being a prior governor had nothing to do with how he got that job.

      I don’t want to debate specific policies, I only cite thesethings to give you the flavor of what I’m trying to say.

      Further – you IMAGINE others have threads about his scuzzy opponent bringing up the scurrilous rumormongering? Enough people have said enough things here and on about 100 total posts I’m the only one who said it.

      As to him losing everything, he may well not. But he could and even that possibility is not fair. It shows the ridiculous double standards people have for THEIR OWN behavior and how they feel when the get to judge others, ie their elected officials.

      But keep on, no one qualified will run for office. I certainly wouldn’t subject myself to this BS.

      Jan 27, 2009 at 12:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Buddy
      Buddy

      @Bill Perdue: Ah Bill, Bill, I don’t seem to be getting through to you, but from what I’ve seen I can take comfort in the knowledge I’m not alone in that. :D

      My thesis is simple, straightforward, and based on a narrow aspect of this entire issue: the expectation of privacy for public and elect figures, and the use of privacy as a defense after the fact, is both naive in the real world, and, as far as I’m concerned, unwarranted in the ideal world.

      That’s it.

      That’s the only point I’m trying to make.

      Defend Mayor Adam however you wish, but even he himself isn’t going around saying his life is private and shouldn’t have been looked into in the first place, because it’s a laughable defense.

      If I was going to argue against Mayor Adams, I’d say he has displayed bad judgment, lost the respect of a large number of his constituents, and lost a chunk of credibility. When questioned about Breedlove’s latest remarks, regarding making out in the mens room when Breedlove was 17, Adams ended up getting flustered, and terminated the interview, kicking out the questioner.

      Should he resign? Probably not, but he should co-operate with the investigation, and if it begins to impact his ability to serve as mayor, it might be wise to take a short leave of absence. But then, I don’t live in Portland and so, other than dealing with the negative fallout from people who already hate gays anyway, I don’t have any skin in the game.

      Bud

      Jan 28, 2009 at 5:21 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • sparkle obama
      sparkle obama

      @Cody:

      i think some of you *apologists* (ring a bell?)
      need to exchange “gay” for “african american” in this scenario.
      would you be so willing to forgive?
      …and you wonder why Black people resent being compared to Us!
      gays neeed to lose the narcissism if We want to be respected by other minorities.
      those who cpntinue to harp about “sex-negativity” are missing the boat.
      this story is about hubris & dishonesty and manipulation – not sexual freedom per se.
      if adams had a private relationship with an 18 year old not associated with his campaign, never lied about it to get votes and never helped the reporters on his tail get jobs, this would be a non-story.
      everyone knows this, so y’all can quit playing the victim and being fake!
      obama has set a new standard with his spotless campaign and he is asking us all to step up & do better.
      this includes the gays.
      think of the kids and show some class, dingleberries!
      gosh!

      Jan 28, 2009 at 12:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      @Buddy: @Buddy: Buddy Bubba, your only point throughout this discussion has been to say that rightwing christer closet cases like Larry Craig and Curtis should be treated with respect. I disagree, and so do most except for the occasional religious nut. You think that Adams and Breedlove should be punished for having gay sex. I disagree, and so do most except for the occasional religious nut.

      Freely chosen belief systems based on superstition and ignorance, aka religion, skirt the boundaries of sanity. It easy for people trapped in those delucsiont to slip and fall over to the other side of rationality. Your ideas, which mutate with each new post are not very reality based. There is a difference between Larry Craig and Adams, and I’m not referring to the partisan difference. Like all religious beliefs yours change so often because they’re built on quicksand and won’t stand up to rational criticism.

      Jan 28, 2009 at 1:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • sparkle obama
      sparkle obama

      @Bill Perdue:
      >>You think that Adams and Breedlove should be punished for having gay sex. <<

      quit lying; no one ever said that!
      you are clinging to red herrings here.
      the issue is ethics:
      lying to the public to influence votes, coercing a young person to lie, etc etc.
      bill perdue, check yourself.
      you do the gays no favors.

      Jan 28, 2009 at 3:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      @sparkle obama: It’s not surprising that right wingers like sparky support bigots like Obama. Obama appeared at Warren’s southern baptist bigotfest to say that ‘god’s’ a bigot too. His exact words were ‘god’s in the mix’. The mainly Euroamerican voters who clobbered us at the polls did it in part because Obama validated their common bigotry. Then, as payback and to rub salt in the wound Obama invited Warren to his inaugural. Obama is continuing the islamophobic and racist war against muslims in SW Asia. Obama’s a lap dog of the corporate looters who wrecked our economy and supports giving them hundreds of billions in unearned handouts.

      Sparky supports Obama because of his racist war, his pro-business anti-GLBT policies. That’s why he was first in line to make false charges the intent of which is to punish gay men for having gay sex.

      Jan 28, 2009 at 3:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Buddy
      Buddy

      @Bill Perdue: Wow, do you just type to see your name in print? :D Because I’m amazed at your inability to read.

      Just for the record I’m a Canadian and personally so far to the left that your democrats look right wing compare to our country.

      Let’s go over the record, huh? In an earlier thread I questioned that anyone could believe that public figures really had a private life, because I consider it a naive view and a poor defense when someone does something politically stupid. I also find the hypocrisy of the same folks who come down hard on their enemies giving Mayor Adams a free pass. As a matter of fact, that pisses me off even more that Sam Adams screwing around with a teenager and then trying to cover it up like a cat on linoleum.

      I even focused on you, Bill, not just because it was easy to document your hypocrisy here on Queerty, but also because you were choosing to attack those who dared to suggest we treat our favorite gay politicians with the same scrutiny we direct to our enemies.

      Now, you’re turning around and saying I’m all about protecting the right wing candidates which, if you knew me, is quite the laugh. Either you are really really stupid, or, in my opinion more likely, deliberately twisting my position as an exercise in dishonest debating. I have had a lot experience with the latter when engaging with anti-gay bigots, but I guess I shouldn’t be surprised to see it on our own team.

      Regardless, now that I know what level of discourse to expect from you, I’ll curb my tendency to engage you in the future. Is this the place where I’m supposed to say “Meh, I’m through with you.”? :D

      ———
      It reminds me of a joke:

      A woman visits a lawyer and says “I want a divorce!”

      He says “Do you have any grounds?”

      “Yup, an acre and a half.”

      “No madam, I mean do you have a grudge?”

      “Nope, we’ve got a carport.”

      “Um, does he beat you up?”

      “No, I’m up before him each morning!”

      Finally the exasperated lawyer asks “Please madam, why do you want a divorce??”

      “You can’t have an intelligent conversation with him!!”

      Jan 28, 2009 at 11:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • sparkle obama
      sparkle obama

      @Bill Perdue:

      and they say *i’m* a kook!

      Jan 29, 2009 at 2:17 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      @Buddy: Bubba, your point all along is that there is no distinction between attacks on men having sex with men, which is the issue with Adams/Breedlove and the antics of closeted piglets like Senator Craig and Mayor Curtis.

      Adams and Breedlove deserve to be supported when attacked for having sex. Craig and Curtis deserve support for their civil liberties, pity and scorn.

      You deserve what you get. Scorn for daring to attack the right of gay men to have sex. That makes you a rightwinger. Maybe even, ick, a christer. Certainly a prissy little prude. I’d don’t care if you’re NDP or whatever, in the fight for GLBT equality you wind up on the wrong side, the right wing side.

      Jan 29, 2009 at 4:22 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      @sparkle obama: No sparky, they say you’re someone willing to sacrifice the needs of the LGBT communites for partisan reasons. And you are.

      Jan 29, 2009 at 4:24 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • sparkle obama
      sparkle obama

      @Bill Perdue:

      gay leaders don’t “need” to lie to their constituents!
      i honestly don’t understand you.

      Jan 29, 2009 at 12:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      gay leaders don’t “need” to lie to their constituents!
      i honestly don’t understand you.

      I’m sure you don’t but what are you talking about.

      Jan 29, 2009 at 12:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • sparkle obama
      sparkle obama

      i think we’re done here.

      Jan 29, 2009 at 6:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chris
      Chris

      @Bill Perdue: “You christers are not oppressed, you’re the oppressors and the main source of bigotry, discrimination and violence against the GLBT communities”

      I am openly and actively gay, Christian, and I don’t oppress anybody, and I’m the one you’re talking to. I am not oppressed as a Christian, though sometimes maligned and treated with bigotry, hatred, and rudeness by people like you. You have shown yourself here to be an intolerant bigot, towards a number of people for a number of issues, with no apologies for it.

      There is no question that much damage has been done by people who call themselves Christians, especially those who behave like you, pushing your limited viewpoint on others, lashing out at anyone who feels differently.

      “To ‘protect’ yourself and cover your ass at work you join in condemning sex between these two men.”

      I echo someone else who called you on lying. Through this entire thread, I have not condemned sex between these two men. Not even close. If you wish to have any credibility, stop lying.

      I am sorry you have so much anger and rot inside due to intolerant behavior from anyone. However, being mean and cruel to people, especially those of us here who are part of the gay community, who have experienced the same discrimination, is probably not the way to heal your own wounds.

      With your nasty behavior, you may be the type of person our opponents will try to point to as a symbol of the “gay reprobate” character of our community. Please don’t pretend to speak for us.

      Feb 8, 2009 at 2:15 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      @Chris: These discussions are not really for churchy types.

      Sanctimonious moralizing has nothing to do with the question at hand. It’s a question of defending sex between men, not channeling Roy Cohn’s interna.ized homophobia.

      I’mn sorry you internalize homophobia and demand that gay men be punished to endear you to your fellow christers. If you want to end discrimination by christers call them on it, don’t join them in it.

      Religion is the enemy.

      Feb 8, 2009 at 6:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jaroslaw
      Jaroslaw

      Chris – you may be a great person, but what Bill is saying is that you are PART of the opressors simply by participating in Christianity. Surely you can see this? Unless you go to a completely Gay friendly Church.

      Feb 10, 2009 at 11:00 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chris
      Chris

      @Jaroslaw: I do go to a completely gay-friendly church. It’s mostly LGBT, but we are open and affirming for heterosexuals, too. However, that is not what distinguishes me from being grouped with those who are “oppressors.”

      Look, I am in complete agreement that some people and Christian organizations malign gay people. It’s a given. However, that does not define Christianity, per se, or every Christian person. You can bet some people try to pin a negative stereotype on every gay person based on the poor behavior of some. Gay people here in Portland have sent death threats to the staff of “Just Out” and vandalized their property. As we can see in this thread, some gay people lie about and viciously malign other gay people. (Bill Purdue has been as malicious (or more so) towards me for being Christian as religious fundamentalists have been to me for being gay.) He’s gay and rude and mean-spirited. Since you’re part of his gay community, does that mean you’re rude and mean-spirited too?

      It’s not logical to define Christianity, per se, or every Christian person by the actions of hypocritical, ignorant people who do harm. Jesus never condemned LGBT people, but he consistently and harshly reprimanded ignorant religious hypocrites. Many, many of us are today are followers of Jesus, not followers of the modern-day Pharisees.

      By the way, I get the point you were making about the corruption in politics, and I understand your reasoning in giving Sam a pass on this whole issue.

      Mar 18, 2009 at 10:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jaroslaw
      Jaroslaw

      #60 Chris – I’m not even sure what the point is you’re trying to make. Of course, I understand the words, but perhaps the discussion has morphed so far from the origin, it no longer makes sense to me.

      Of course, there are good Christians, “bad” ones and everything in between. But Bill has a point – the overarching history through the centuries is Christianity and most religions are oppressive and used to control the masses. Now, I have said on other posts, if religion is not the opressor, other things will be used, but that is another discussion.

      Yes, I’m well aware Jesus never mentioned homosexuals and he was always in trouble with the establishment. Ultimately what is the point? I don’t mean to sound snarky here, but I just don’t know anymore. Love your neighbor as yourself. What could be easier to understand and harder to do?

      Mar 19, 2009 at 8:31 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Queerty now requires you to log in to 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.