Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
TOTALLY NOT GAY

Why Would Bishop Eddie Long’s Wife Want To Divorce An Anti-Gay, Repeatedly Accused Boy Molester?

After paying off the four teenage boys that he totally didn’t molest (and then asking for the money back from two of them), anti-gay Bishop Eddie Long’s New Birth Missionary Baptist Church assured us that his wife Vanessa wasn’t leaving him. But guess what? She is. Hmmm… we wonder why, especially when he looks so good in the spandex pictures he sent to his teenage boy friends.

By:           Daniel Villarreal
On:           Dec 2, 2011
Tagged: ,
  • 11 Comments
    • kim
      kim

      Never mind she withdrew the divorce petition

      Dec 2, 2011 at 5:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • kylew
      kylew

      Point of fact, the guys were all older than 16 at the time, so it was not molestation and they were not boys. But he’s still a monumental asshole. Still, looks like they’re not the only ones who’s silence can be bought. Does that make his wife a whore too?

      Dec 2, 2011 at 9:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ted B. (Charging Rhino)
      Ted B. (Charging Rhino)

      They may have been 16, but he still abused his authority-position to “not molest” them . …No different than a teacher, coach or employer.

      Dec 2, 2011 at 11:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • kylew
      kylew

      @Ted B. (Charging Rhino): Yes point taken Ted. So where does the line between molestation and strong persuasion fall?

      I know lots of teachers, coaches and employers who have had relationships with their students/employees. It’s a very common situation, and natural for people who spend a lot of time in each other’s company.

      Dec 3, 2011 at 7:49 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      @kylew: said…

      “@Ted B. (Charging Rhino): Yes point taken Ted. So where does the line between molestation and strong persuasion fall?”
      ____________________

      Legally there is no difference. All the sexual harassment laws are based on the thought that somebody in a subordinate position is in a difficult position to consent. Additionally, at their age they can’t legally consent.

      My last comment. I wish the wives would leave when the incident happens. But they pretend they are sticking with them, then bolt later more quietly.

      Dec 3, 2011 at 12:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • kylew
      kylew

      @Cam: The boys were 17 and 18, which is surely old enough to give consent in the US.

      I don’t know how sexual harrassment laws work in the US, but in the UK I’m fairly sure that one has to demonstrate UNWANTED sexual attention.

      You are right that the power dynamic makes the subordinate VULNERABLE to an unwanted sexual relationship, but I find it impossible to believe that the law automatically frowns upon relationships of these kinds. If the preacher was respectful and considerate in his request for a relationship, I would have no problem.

      I loathe the fact that this man preached against homosexuality, whilst engaging in it, but I find the fact that four legal-aged guys all challenged him at the same time, more than a little suspicious.

      Dec 3, 2011 at 12:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      @kylew: said..

      “I don’t know how sexual harrassment laws work in the US, but in the UK I’m fairly sure that one has to demonstrate UNWANTED sexual attention.”
      _____________________________________

      No, it is legally an imbalance of power if you are a boss or in a position of authority. It’s similar to statuatory rape. It doesn’t matter if the person consents, it is assumed that the others position of authority is pressure.

      Dec 3, 2011 at 4:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rich
      Rich

      Long recruited the guys to his “Longfellow” fellowship when they were younger than the age of consent. They tended to be boys whose moms thought they needed a male role model. They probably were vulnerable kids and he had plenty of time to cultivate favorites and then prey on them when they were “old enough”. It’s very typical of predators. It probably violates the laws governing his clergy license–dual relationships–sexual and parishioner. Trying to explain away his conduct misses fairly obvious and calculated behavior as well as probable regulatory issues with his license.

      Dec 4, 2011 at 7:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • kylew
      kylew

      @Rich: Oh really? That is interesting. And I was in no way trying to explain away his conduct. Regardless of the legality or clerical misdemeanour, the fact is, this prick was preaching intolerance whilst practicing the very thing he preached against.

      But yet again, what does it say of the church that permits hm to keep his job? Oh wait, 25,000 customers, I mean parishioners. Tha buys a lot of forgiveness. Guess he’s not the only stranger to hypocricy, anf the catholic church is not the only stranger to gay lovin’ of the young boys…

      Dec 4, 2011 at 10:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 7 · Cam wrote, “@kylew: said.. “I don’t know how sexual harrassment laws work in the US, but in the UK I’m fairly sure that one has to demonstrate UNWANTED sexual attention.”
      No, it is legally an imbalance of power if you are a boss or in a position of authority. It’s similar to statuatory rape. It doesn’t matter if the person consents, it is assumed that the others position of authority is pressure.”

      Cam overstated it – statuatory rape in the U.S. is a crime. Sexual harassment, as long as it does not involve some sort of sexual contact with an unwilling person, is not a crime, but can be grounds for a civil suit. As long as the teens Eddie Long allegedly took advantage of were not below the age of consent, what he did is not criminal – he can’t be sent to jail for it, unless he physically forced his victims to do it.

      Apparently there was a settlement of some sort, but regardless of what that was, the rest of us can declare Long to be persona non grata and not have anything to do with him, if we so choose. But that is really all we can do.

      Dec 5, 2011 at 1:01 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dekalbman
      Dekalbman

      Couple of observations — the so called church is 100% under the control of Eddie Long — he is the church and the church is him (answering the question about why the church didn’t get rid of him when this all came out over a year ago)

      Second point — the wife did not withdraw the petition and the “second thoughts” PR was issued by the church not by her — again it was the church (ie Eddie) trying to control and manage the situation — Ms Vanessa reinforced Friday evening that the divorce was on

      Dec 5, 2011 at 3:11 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.