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.