Comments on: What would a Rekers defamation suit bring about?

By: TampaZeke

TampaZeke — Fri, 24 Sep 2010 23:50:22 +0000

I think Candace nailed it; particularly in her first comment.

By: Jon

Jon — Fri, 14 May 2010 21:27:32 +0000

Rekers is a public figure. So to win his case, he has to convince a judge/jury that the New Times wrote that he was a homosexual either knowing it to be false or with a reckless disregard for the truth. So he doesn’t just have to convince the finder of fact that his twisted definition of what it means to be “homosexual” is valid for him or that it’s reasonable — the finder of fact has to determine that it’s unreasonable for anyone else to use the more normal definition.

In other words, Rekers has to prove that it’s absolutely unreasonable for anyone to think that just because a man gets nude massages from a masseur, involving genital contact, that the man is homosexual.

Good luck with that, George.

By: Paul in Canada

Paul in Canada — Fri, 14 May 2010 17:55:34 +0000

“And what I hope for, is that he can take LU, FRC and all the others down with him.”

…which is why they’re all distancing themselves from him, scrubbing their websites and, I’m sure, having shredders working overtime!

By: Regan DuCasse

Regan DuCasse — Fri, 14 May 2010 17:51:24 +0000

“…depends on what is…is”

He’s so going to lose this lawsuit.
And deserves to.
It’s not libel to be exposed doing exactly what you’re doing. Which has had hurtful consequences to gays and lesbians. And by that exposure are revealed to be the opposite of what you claim.
It’s not libel to be exposed as a liar.
Libel essentially requires malice based actions in which a person’s reputation is ruined by what isn’t factually true.

And, as Jim is pointing out, it’s not even his actions he’s denying, but that he’s a homosexual.
As if that’s a BAD thing. Well, it is to him and his defenders.

But even their own logic doesn’t really square with that.

Because it’s NOT a bad thing to be gay. And their interpretation of homosexuality really isn’t something the courts can interpret as such.

And if he thinks that all of his lying and hurting the gay community isn’t supposed to come back to bite his ass, in what universe is there a guarantee that’s not supposed to happen?
Or that it shouldn’t?

I find it seriously arrogant that his defenders or people like him believe that the human sacrifice of gays and lesbians is all good and lines up with ‘the social and natural order’.
And call themselves brave and courageous for ‘fighting’ people who aren’t anyone’s enemy.

But when it comes to REALLY fighting, making a sacrifice, being accountable for their actions and perhaps truly understanding what treating another the way you’d want to be treated means…
well, I don’t think I’ve ever seen such whiny, victim card playing in all my life.

‘The rent boy made him do it’. ‘The reporters who exposed him aren’t playing fair and need to be sued’. ‘I’m really not a gay person, all these homosexuals are saying bad things about me’!

He’s the human sacrifice now, and he don’t like it one bit.
And what I hope for, is that he can take LU, FRC and all the others down with him.

By: scioto

scioto — Fri, 14 May 2010 17:37:37 +0000

I believe they have a situational definition of homosexual. When it benefits them it only involves conduct, but when they want to keep someone from serving in the military, housing, or employment, no conduct is necessary.

By: LOrion

LOrion — Fri, 14 May 2010 17:14:09 +0000

oops spelled handle wrong.

By: LOion

LOion — Fri, 14 May 2010 17:13:40 +0000

The other prospect is as Waymon Hudson mentioned on GAY STREET BEAT yesterday, and I have heard discussed by others familiar with the law. Many cases all around the country have relied on Rekers ‘expert’ testimony. If he is found to have truly been hiding his sexuality, his testimony could be found to be without merit. And there are more than just the people of FL who will want their $120,000 paid to him back.

By: Michael Bussee

Michael Bussee — Fri, 14 May 2010 15:11:59 +0000

I think Warren Throckmorton said it very well on his Blog:

“If Rekers is not gay/bi and really means it then that really lowers the bar for what notgay is.”

http://wthrockmorton.com/page/2/

By: Ron

Ron — Fri, 14 May 2010 05:23:37 +0000

Mr. Burroway, you have written a superb analysis of Rekers predicament. It is extremely gratifying to read pieces like yours that go deeper than surface crap. Rekers is indeed playing a very intense mind game with himself and is the epitome of cognitive dissonance.

By: Paul in Canada

Paul in Canada — Fri, 14 May 2010 01:27:50 +0000

Exactly! Having gone through their ex-gay counselling and subsequently embracing who I am, and now in a committed same-sex relationship for nearly 20 years, the family and friends who still cling to their evangelical christianity are confronted with…… “hmmmm, now what? He’s happy, well adjusted and living a ‘normal’ life. God hasn’t smittem him for the evil force we thought he was….”

OMG! What, if not the latest Reker-scandle will it take to open their eyes to the fact that they are, indeed, blind?