While double checking my comments I did note an article, published in Oregon on Wed, in which Adams now admits “the whole mentee thing was a lie.” That is a direct quote from Adams that he is not disputing, the text from the article itself implies that Adams basically admitted there was never any mentorship going on beyond the first request from Breedlove to discuss being gay in the legislature. That there was “immediate attraction” (Adams again) when they met, when Breedlove was under age.

I also checked Adams blog (the old one as the new one has been taken down) and the letter reposted by Tristam has 30 or so pages of comments in support with people sharing their own stories of being considered predators, being excluded from jobs and service programs for fear that they were predators, etc. and the whole time Sam Adams stoked the conversation comparing their real experiences of oppression with his made up one.

Again the issue is not that he was asked something he should not have been asked; he was asked if he slept with someone who was underage and with whom he had taken on a mentorship role. If he is telling the truth, the answer to both of those questions is “no.” In which case he had nothing to fear by saying so. What he is guilty of is 1. starting an emotional relationship with someone he claimed to be mentoring at the time of the relationship when that person was under age, with the intent to engage in a sexual relationship once he was legal. (If a straight man in his 40s was dating a 17 year old girl with intent to sleep with her a few weeks after her 18th birthday, I believe Oregonians would be equally disgusted and outraged.) 2. lying not only to the media that is calling for his resignation but also to the queer community and allies (including other Oregon politicians who he has now apologized to for “compromising their integrity”) all of whom defended him against what we were told was a baseless homophobic attack and 3. asking at least two people, Breedlove and his overpaid former journalist staff person, to lie for him; both of them are now under potentially career ending scrutiny as well. I feel like a fool for standing up for him. And so do many of my friends, who are able to see the difference between some of the homophobic ways Adams has been attacked during this scandal (which is wrong) and what he did (which is equally wrong). But worse, I feel like he pimped the community’s real experiences of homophobia and painful memories of being called predators when we are not to hide what he had done and the lies he told about it. And for someone who has made a point of being a mentor to queer political hopefuls in the city, as well as queer youth in general, he has also compromised the careers of at least two of those mentees to get his groove on and the backlash may now compromise a fundraiser he was putting on for the q center, further negatively impacting queer youth in this city.

There is a lot at stake here and while some of it is very clearly allowing homophobic people in Oregon to spew hate and think they are the majority, that should not be enough to discount the serious ethical and social issues and impact Adams decisions have made. even Portland’s queer weekly paper agrees (as this is not a homophobes vs. the gay mayor issue as Savage would have people believe; many in the queer community are upset and shaken).

Ultimately, knowing Adams myself and having worked closely with another major, out figure, in our local government who has worked closely with Adams, I doubt he will step down. I especially think the Savage intervention is going to make him puff right back up and act like he did nothing wrong. And in fact, that is exactly what he would have continued to do if one of the local papers had not finally decided to put the issue in print. And ultimately all of us will pay the price b/c Adams credibility has been compromised amongst multiple constituents in Portland and certainly with the more conservative cities in the tri-county area and beyond. No one knows how that will impact his effectiveness as a Mayor, a real mentor, and an advocate for queer youth but so far it has resulted in him dropping out of an ethics conference at the local college and people canceling their reservations for his fundraiser for queer youth.

(Seriously, we should be able to confront the homophobia in this case without excusing the ethical issues in it. One does not negate the other.)

Yeah, the sleazy person in all this is Adams, not the other gay guy who knowingly started up rumors about a man dating a young man…

Seriously, on what basis were the allegations raised? It seems pretty clear that, posts to the contrary, at least one Portlander thought exposing the story might cost Adams the election.

I do not see anything inappropriate with an investigation looking into the possibility of any criminal conduct given Adams position as Mayor; that is, if Adams had sex with Breedlove before he turned 18 and if the affair conducted while Adams was serving as a city commissioner rose to the level of official misconduct; that is, if Adams also used his position of power to keep others quiet about what they knew.

Such an invesitgation is necessary to maintain the public’s trust.

Such an invistigation could also clear Adams’ name of any criminal wrongdoing.

If he is cleared of any criminal wrongdoing there would be no need for these calls of resignation.

Personal opinions regarding what people think or feel about the relationship itself between Adams and Breedlove are, in my opinion, irrelevant.

BTB has totally shocked me with this main post. The post was made prior to having all the information and played the “anti-gay card” with lightening speed. I guess I never paid close enough attention to the material before. I’ll read everything here a little differently now.

Mike,

Please always be cautious about what you read or watch anywhere. And that includes here at BTB. We’re human with biases, presumptions, and days in which we might not be at our best. And occasionally we get something wrong.

What we write here at Box Turtle Bulletin is just our take, our opinion. And at times the authors disagree with each other so we certainly can’t expect all the readers to agree with everything we write.

We hope that we are adding some perspective and providing an easier access to specific information. But at the end of the day we can’t do anyone’s thinking for them and, frankly, we wouldn’t want the responsibility.

Well I guess I identify as agnostic nowadays, but I brought in that ninth commandment mostly as a rebuke of the Proposition 8 supporters, who were overwhelmingly religious based groups. You’re the one who brought Proposition 8 into this. I was merely pointing out that even by their own (rhetorical) standards their lies were worse then Adams’.

And it’s not a matter of separating lies into categories. It’s a matter of judging harm and right now the only harm I’m seeing in what Adams did is it gave the bigots something to bellyache about. That’s not a trivial concern and Adams might want to ponder that it isn’t only his good he has to worry about in all this. But this whole thing strikes me as Clinton and Lewinsky all over again, with people venting that Clinton’s lie was as bad as Nixon’s. No. It wasn’t. It simply wasn’t.

If the kid was under age, or one of his own staffers who was hired in exchange for sex, I’d be saying he needed to resign too (although since I’m not a resident of Portland I’d kinda feel like it wasn’t any of my business). I may still say it if something more pops out of his closet. But at the moment I’m just really tired of people who make other people’s sex lives an issue. Favoritism is an issue. Sexually harassing your own staff is an issue. Taking advantage of under age kids is definitely an issue. Cheating on a spouse is definitely an issue. All I see here is finger wagging at a gay man for having a teenage boyfriend.

Yes, he lied about it. Yes, you can make a case that’s a character issue, but not in the way I keep seeing it made a character issue. He should have thrown it back in the questioner’s faces when it first bubbled up to the surface. But if 18 can go to war, then 18 can have a roll in the hay with whatever it wants. As long as the kid wasn’t pressured into it, as long as he isn’t or wasn’t getting taxpayer favors for it (this is the shoe I’m waiting to hear drop), as long as neither of them were cheating on a spouse, then it’s their business (Adams and Breedlove) and nobody else’s.

At every turn, with so much information gathering and technology to produce “instant story lines”, there is so much scrutiny that ability is overlooked.

Did he lie when directly asked? Perhaps. Such as President Clinton redefined “sexual relations”.

And for the record, there’s a lot of intentional targeting of established 40 something year old professionals by young adults. And, for the record, there is a long list of relationships that are successful with 20+ years difference.

The story is out. He’s come clean on the facts. No let the man do his job as mayor and judge his record 2-4 years down the road when it comes time for re-election. Heck, follow the stories of our mayor and his antics here in Jackson, MS. I’d be darn glad if we did have a candidate with the credentials of Adams, but the far right wing radical church-mongers of Mississippi wouldn’t elect a gay official if he was the last man/woman standing as a resident.

Politicians routinely say “no new taxes” and then impose new taxes on people. Those are “lies to the public” because the action directly impacts the public. Yet the media yawns over those kind of daily lies from the political class. But when a politician refuses to tell the truth about his sex life “honesty” suddenly because the issue.

The only conclusion I can have from this sort of double standard from the media is that the issue isn’t honesty at all. They ignore dishonesty among politicians routinely, especially when they worship the politician (see how the media will portray Obama for a very long time). The reason they are hyped up on this sort of “honesty” is because it involves sex. And Americans are still sexophobic Puritans no matter how secular they become. (that is a general statement meant to imply exceptions).