Slog May 7, 2010 4:19 PM

Court: Rekers' Anti-Gay Testimony Not "Credible" Even Before He Got Caught Hiring Male Hookers

by Dan Savage

Comments

1
You didn't highlight the most important part of the AG's statement - "after an exhaustive search for potential expert witnesses who were willing to testify."

Nobody was willing testify because there is no science to support the state's position that gays should be prevented from adopting.
igub on May 7, 2010 at 4:05 PM · Report this
2
What's with the weird hyphenations in the Court's decision?
slake on May 7, 2010 at 4:14 PM · Report this
3
@2: "What's with the weird hyphenations in the Court's decision?"

those are known as rentboy-longstrokes in legal speak.
pissy mcslogbot on May 7, 2010 at 4:17 PM · Report this
4
That was one hell of a jump. I think I'm justified in saying TL; DR.
Irena on May 7, 2010 at 4:21 PM · Report this
5
Finally, a happy ending!
wench on May 7, 2010 at 4:25 PM · Report this
6
Speaking of rent boys reminds me of my favorite patron of rent boys Gore Vidal, which reminds me of the story of how you and Terry bonded talking about him, which I read in the story today about "The Kid" in previews Off Broadway. You're quoted! What's it been like to be the author once removed, or whatever the show term is for it? C'mon, you're not on AC360 until, what, 7pm Pacific? Spill the beans!

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/theate…
gloomy gus on May 7, 2010 at 4:41 PM · Report this
7
@3 lol

@2 probably the original paper has dashes at the ends of lines, and when copied to here, they're no longer at the ends of lines

@Dan: A link would've sufficed. Jesus Christ that's TL;DR
ForkyMcSpoon on May 7, 2010 at 4:46 PM · Report this
8
OT: Really? Not one blurb on SLOG about the fact that the musical version of "The Kid" is opening Monday night in NYC and that the NY Times has a big article on it right now?

Sometimes, you DO have to toot your own horn, Dan...
michael strangeways on May 7, 2010 at 4:46 PM · Report this
9
"This Final Judgment of Adoption now and forever creates a filial relationship between Peti-tioner, JOHN DOE and JAMES DOE." Becky Sharp is not known to be sentimental, but she teared up a little.

This warms the heart. Happy ending indeed.
beckysharp on May 7, 2010 at 4:51 PM · Report this
10
RE @6 & @8: Hear, hear!
emma's bee on May 7, 2010 at 4:52 PM · Report this
11
@2: This was probably copy/pasted from a PDF document created by LaTeX (a lot of courts use it for typesetting), which inserts hyphenation at line breaks.
doug on May 7, 2010 at 5:00 PM · Report this
12
Remember, Florida has no income tax. So if you've vacationed in that state in the past several years, its bigoted residents thank you for contributing toward the bill for Rekers' "expert" testimony.

(What I came here to say before getting distracted)
emma's bee on May 7, 2010 at 5:02 PM · Report this
13
In other words, the court said he's a bigot. That too much taxpayer's money for a bigot's testimony.
Maybe a shit storm should be stirred up in Florida. The asshole state.
Vince on May 7, 2010 at 5:05 PM · Report this
14
It also really speaks to the fact that the haters need to dredge up these "experts" from third-rate universities, and they're the best that they can find--i.e. that the overwhelming weight of science is against them.

And they pretend to cite other sources, but it's just one big circle jerk. NARTH says "gay is bad," and cites to FRC. Then you go to what they cite by FRC, which is "gay is bad"--and THEIR source for that claim is FRC. They've got no real sources, but all they do is cite to each other to give a veneer of credibility.
DeanP on May 7, 2010 at 5:13 PM · Report this
15
I read that court decision yesterday. It's an excellent decision, a very touching story, a great outcome for those kids and their parents, and a stinging indictment of Rekers' credentials and motives AND of the motives of his co-"expert," the other religiously-motivated bigot who testified in opposition to allowing these two boys to be adopted by the best parents they've ever known and could ever hope for (and it's also full of small but irritating grammatical errors).
Dingo on May 7, 2010 at 5:17 PM · Report this
16
Isn't it pretty common practice to pay for any sort of expert testimony, regardless of the nature of the case? I mean, granted, usually the experts have something useful to say, with evidence to back them up, but the money thing is pretty standard, I think.
J.T. Oldfield on May 7, 2010 at 5:19 PM · Report this
17
Yay for happy endings!
kim in portland on May 7, 2010 at 5:21 PM · Report this
18
Isn't it kind of ironic that the man who prostituted himself out as an "expert" witness was himself hoisted by his own petard.
kmq1 on May 7, 2010 at 5:24 PM · Report this
19
@5 This opinion was affirmed on appeal by the 3d Fla. DCA . 8)
An appeal to the FSC is in the works by McCollum & crew. 8(
They can't win. 8)

@7 There's no non-pay URL to view this opinion.

Dan,
Everything between and including [West Headnotes and West Codenotes] is copyrighted by West Publishing AKA The Dark Tower. Expect a semi-threating letter if they notice it.
The body of the opinion is not copyrightable.
The person who has Westlaw should have edited it before they sent it.
tombaxter on May 7, 2010 at 5:29 PM · Report this
20
"Dr. Rekers proffered that homosexually behaving individuals have a sub-stantially and significantly larger number of lifetime partners and maintain fewer relationships over a long period of time, partly due to the lack of recognizable legal unions and social support."

Due to the lack of recognizable legal unions and social support? So...does this mean you'll support gay marriage, Dr. Rekers? Then won't the terrible gays maintain more relationships with lower numbers of lifetime partners? I mean, if it's because their unions aren't being recognized then gay marriage helps with that, doesn't it?
Leslie N. on May 7, 2010 at 5:30 PM · Report this
21
And, off topic, but I hope "The Kid" opens to rave reviews and you all enjoy NYC immensely, Dan.
kim in portland on May 7, 2010 at 5:30 PM · Report this
22
Does Rekers actually have a 16-yr-old adopted son? If so, I really feel for the kid, having to be brought up under the "guidance" of such a bizarre & hateful freak.
blackhook on May 7, 2010 at 6:22 PM · Report this
23
makes a person feel good when such hateful bigots are exposed for what they are and the damage they do to the world...
on May 7, 2010 at 7:16 PM · Report this
24
This reminds me: Suck it, Anita Bryant.
madcap on May 7, 2010 at 7:49 PM · Report this
25
Attention!

A second rent boy has come forward to say that he too was hired to "handle Reker's baggage".

http://gawker.com/5533901/second-gay-esc…
yucca flower on May 7, 2010 at 8:18 PM · Report this
26
A bit off topic, but I just saw Lucien/Jo-Vani on CNN, and all the hair haters have to admit he looked pretty cute (because, really, the hair is what matters, not all the Reker's fallout...)
Canuck on May 7, 2010 at 8:29 PM · Report this
27
"The State of Florida has paid Dr. Rekers an advance retainer of $60,900 for work performed on this case to date.FN16

FN16. Dr. Rekers also testified that he may bill the State for additional time."

No where else in the testimony do we see such gold-digging. This man is a whore.

ps: I teared-up several times.
Sandiai on May 7, 2010 at 9:26 PM · Report this
28
Courts doing the right thing. Totally makes my whole week. And I had a pretty good week.
The Max on May 7, 2010 at 11:22 PM · Report this
29
Tough linguine; dry rice.

But from what I skimmed off, good news.
venomlash on May 8, 2010 at 12:51 AM · Report this
30
Whoever put this thing together is not a native English speaker. Who writes tele-vision?
Weekilter on May 8, 2010 at 6:41 AM · Report this
31
Wow, I read that whole thing like a drama. To imagine that so many children have been torn from loving homes like this. I felt like cheering at the end when I read the decision.

That make Rekers is a monster, and obviously a sick, disturbed person.
MichelleZB on May 8, 2010 at 7:53 AM · Report this
32
I was originally going to comment on how horrific they're early life sounded and make some angy noises about how anyone can worry about gay parents when there are such aweful parents out there. Instead, I'm going to be hopeful and happy. Did anybody with a bit more relevant legal experience notice all of the connections drawn between race, gender and sexual orientation? And if so, could this opinion be a legal stepping stone to gay marriage? This plus interracial marriage laws equals gay marriage?
Bojac6 on May 8, 2010 at 9:55 AM · Report this
33
Glad that after all that legalese there's a happy ending. It never ceases to amaze that people like Rekers can say with a straight face (no pun intended) that one of the reasons gay people aren't fit parents is that they're prone to depression & psychological problems. The ONLY reason for those problems is BECAUSE of people like Rekers! Most people who are 'different' in any way will tell you that in their heart of hearts they know that being 'different' isn't wrong. The only thing that makes it feel wrong is the lack of support from society at large.

I applaud everyone who takes a stand against this bigotry and can only hope taking a stand becomes the norm in the not-too-distant future. I'd like to see the Rekers of the world having a hard time finding anyone to support their ignorance.
capricorn44 on May 8, 2010 at 12:57 PM · Report this
34
For some reason in the long line of hypocrites the news has dished up in the past few years, this guy pisses me off BY FAR more than anyone else. I'm straight, atheist, and childless by choice. I don't give a flying f*ck what this douche does in his spare time, but the fact that he got paid more money than I make in 3 years to spew his "expert" hypocrisy aimed at hurting children and keeping families apart makes my blood boil. I can barely type.
on May 8, 2010 at 1:02 PM · Report this
35
@30: I think the hyphens remain from words that were split across two lines in the original, but are now continuous under the current column width.
venomlash on May 8, 2010 at 6:07 PM · Report this
36
Thank you for posting this. There are chunks of crazy in here that I would not have believed. And the judge rocks.
on May 9, 2010 at 11:37 AM · Report this
37
I'm sure all the fundies are happily screaming "activist judges" over this one. God- those people are evil to the core, happily denying any/all research in favor of nothing more than the 'ewww-factor' over the buttsecks.
Long-winded post if ever there was one, but such a happy conclusion. How long before these adoption-bans become un-constitutional?
OutInBumF on May 9, 2010 at 12:53 PM · Report this
38
@ 16 - Yeah, that is pretty standard. Also, Rekers' fees were far from unheard of - expert witnesses get a lot of money for their time. What's scandalous about this is the fact that Rekers is a godawful excuse for an "expert." If he were actually qualified, his fees would be pretty standard.
Anne in MA on May 10, 2010 at 6:51 AM · Report this