Yes, Rekers really was tricked by said male prostitute into receiving nude massages from said male prostitute.

All the while Rekers had no ability to avoid the situation by refusing to hire said male prostitute or rejecting the idea of nude massages.

Yes, Rekers really was duped by the malicious gay agenda. Indeed, the poor man was defenseless in face of the inexorable gay onslaught.

Meanwhile, I also heard the moon really is made out of cheese, that dinosaurs are the result of animals and humans having sex before the Great Flood wiped out such wretched behavior, and that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale – cheap too!

Rekersw sohuld be the father to a boy named SUE!

I’m not an attorney, just an old news guy fascinated by communication law, but I see two problems here.

First, there is a strong possibility that George Rekers is a public figure. Since New York Times v. Sullivan, public figures have had a tough time suing for defamation. The theory is that robust public debate trumps the rights of an individual who is an actor in that public debate.

“Sullivan” was the police commissioner of Montgomery, Alabama and though he wasn’t even explicitly named, he believed he was held up to ridicule because of an advertisement in the NYT Times that attempted to raise funds to defend Dr. Martin Luther King against a trumped up Alabama perjury indictment.

Rekers was a founder and member of the board of a high profile organization that took an extreme position in an area of great controversy. Much of his income came from expert testimony in widely publicized cases that were extensively written about in the press. In two of these cases he was excoriated for testimony that was worthless and biased. This too was widely reported in the press.

When his activity, most of which he does not deny, became public knowledge, he was further elevated to prominence as the subject of the opening monologues on nearly every late night show, from Colbert to Craig Ferguson.

Should he file a case, that too will be newsworthy, and will have the additional protection that, because it’s litigation, it can be publicly discussed with impunity.

Second, we are now starting to see “he called me queer” cases being thrown out of court on the grounds that an imputation of homosexuality is not defamatory.

So once again, “poor” Mr. Rekers finds himself in the damnedest position. If he sues, the very defense in the case is going to highlight the struggle of a minority to even find a level playing field to argue its oppression against the person fueling that oppression. Rekers will find himself compared with the police commissioner of racist Alabama.

In claiming he’s injured by being called gay, he will unwittingly call his own life’s work into question, because the very injury he’s claiming is one he has spent his professional life fostering.

He’ll serve himself up on a platter for every op-ed writer in the country that needs to fill 14 paragraphs with topical edginess, and they’ll be able to do it under the doctrine of qualified privilege.

Wouldn’t surprise me if he does sue. It’s the worst possible thing a man in his position can do, and he’s never failed to take the worst option before.

In a message to The Washington Times, Mr. Rekers noted that since November 2009, gay activist groups have targeted NARTH members to discredit them.

No, we’ve been reporting on NARTH’s lunatics for far longer than that.

Bring it. I’d take Jo-Vanni’s case in a heartbeat (even if he spells his name funny).