Double Standards for Homosexuals
When it comes to the legal system, everyone is treated fairly and equally. That is unless you are gay, then you find yourself in a witch hunt of the worst kind.

By Kathie Gouraly
Posted Monday, October 2, 2006

They reneged on their promise to let Ken turn himself in and instead brought tv cameras and reporters to his house to publicly arrest him.
Readers of this web site are probably aware of the cases of Ken Gourlay and Tim Richards, both of whom are being prosecuted because of allegations by Justin Berry, who is making his accusations in exchange for U. S. Federal immunity from his own numerous crimes, not least of which is producing child pornography with himself as the child star.

Ken's case is being prosecuted by the Michigan Attorney General, while Tim's is being prosecuted in Tennessee by the U. S. Department of Justice, but both are being prosecuted with overwhelming unfairness and with the hysterical tone of a witch hunt.

Ken's case in particular seems to be fodder for the reelection campaign of Michigan Attorney General Michael Cox. Democrat Amos Williams is running against Cox. We believe that if Williams were the Attorney General now, Ken would not be under state prosecution.

Regardless of whether Ken is guilty or innocent, the Attorney General's office has handled Ken's case unjustly in the following ways:

1) They reneged on their promise to let Ken turn himself in and instead brought tv cameras and reporters to his house to publicly arrest him.

2) They set a half-million dollar bond for this non-violent offender with no previous criminal record.

3) In September after discovering that Ken's family had managed to combine resources and pay the bond, they re-arrested Ken with new charges based on information that they had had for 6 weeks but had chosen not to use before.

4) When Ken turned himself in they again alerted and had tv news there.

5) This arrest was coordinated with arrests of seventeen other alleged sex criminals on the same day, an event which the Attorney General publicized with a press conference.

6) This distorted publicity might prejudice thousands of potential jury members, and prevent Ken from getting a fair trial,

7) Ken's new charges were most unusual, 20 charges instead of 1, all for 3rd degree (consensual) sexual conduct with the same person.

8) Instead of a normal sized bond for these charges, and after Cox's prosecuting attorney repeatedly said he saw no need for more bond money, at the arraignment the A.G.'s office asked for an additional one million dollar bond (appearing to be violating the 8th amendment of the Constitution). The purpose of bond is not to keep someone in jail, but to assure that he/she appears in court. All Ken's charges require a bond, ie. they are "bondable".

9) Although Cox has disclaimers on his website saying that the accused are considered innocent until proven guilty, the words and actions of his office negate this.

Although we feel that child sex crimes can be very serious, not all of them are equally so. The obsession of the Michigan Attorney General's office with this issue is working to Michigan's detriment.

Instead, we believe Michigan should be moving forward on a more effective path. We desire a Michigan Attorney General who:

1) Gives attention to ALL types of crimes. In particular, those crimes that extend beyond the bounds of a single local judiciary or involve the local government itself - corporate crimes, utility company crimes, environmental crimes, crimes by the police.

2) Sets the highest ethical standards for fairness, due process, and civil rights.

3) Respects and defends an accused person's constitutional right to the presumption of innocence. Does not hold press conferences announcing arrests and does not parade arrested people in chains before television cameras.

4) Does not use high bonds deliberately to detain people.

5) Does not prosecute homosexuals more severely than heterosexuals accused of the same type of crime.

6) Prosecutes offenders of hate crimes against gays and perceived child offenders, both inside and outside prisons, whether perpetrated by inmates or guards, and educates the public to reduce hate crimes.

7) Encourages judges to take into account the circumstances when creating a sentence.

8) Recommends safe, but less severe punishments to encourage sex offenders and their acquaintances to voluntarily come forward.

9) Uses best known sex therapies and electronic monitoring instead of prison to keep society safe, while at the same time saving taxpayer money, minimizing disruption to families, and allowing sex offenders to contribute to society as much as possible.

10) Does not use stings to create criminals.

11) Does not grant immunity in exchange for incriminating evidence.

This is unfair and produces unreliable evidence.

Other issues raised by Ken's case:

1) The media are sensationalizing the case: by using terms such as Ken "lured" Justin to Ann Arbor; calling criminal sexual conduct in the 3rd degree, which is consensual sex, a "rape"; and by reporting Ken's age as a year older than it is.

2) Ken is being treated as guilty before being convicted. Did you know 60% of the people in Michigan jails are there pre-trial? The UN recommends holding such people, if they must be detained at all, in separate facilities from convicted criminals.

3) Ken is being charged with various crimes, and also being charged separately with using the Internet to facilitate those crimes. The Internet charges actually have harsher penalties than the crimes themselves. Why should use of the Internet to plan a crime have a harsher sentence than the crime itself? Why is using the Internet different than using the phone, or using the mail?

4) The U. S. has extremely long sentences and harsh penalties compared to other countries in the world. Did you know that of the 9 million people in prison in the world, 2 million of them are in the United States? Google "The Sentencing Project".

5) The U. S. is schizophrenic about sex. Almost everything is
sexualized: movies, music, clothes, magazines, even cars. Sex is on teenagers minds more than anything else. If two 15 year olds have sex it is considered "sexual experimentation", however if a 15 year old and an 18 year old have sex it is a 15 year felony. Neither of these situations are necessarily good, moral, or appropriate, but they are not very different from each other.

6) Sex offenders are subject to unique, unreasonable, lifetime penalties. Shouldn't it be possible at some point to say someone has been punished enough? Why should former sex criminals have to register for the rest of their lives, when murderers and other assaultive offenders don't have to? Why should former sex criminals be prevented from living near schools or playgrounds when murderers and assaultive criminals can live there. Why should these penalties extend even to someone who was found to have pornography or to have consensual sex with someone they shouldn't have? Why should former sex offenders be forbidden from holding more and more kinds of jobs?

Mrs. Betty Bowers' Words of Christian Concern for Ted Haggard's Delicious Disgrace

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Delighted Snickers:

I suspect that this will be a rather uncomfortable weekend at the Ted Haggard tax-free mansion. You see, Reverend Haggard is a vociferous spokesperson against gay marriage and, until yesterday, his wife probably had no idea she was actually in one.

Oh, I can hear some of you gals used to being around florists and Governors of New Jersey -- and Texas -- cackling. You think I'm selling the woman's intuition for pushily obvious queenery short. But if Haggard's unblinking congregation could sit and listen to such a liturgical Liberace week after week and not realize they were in the presence of someone who makes Barry Manilow in a full-length mink look butch, they really need to recalibrate their ability to detect prescription-strength doses of flamboyance. Because if you can't tell that Haggard is not just gay, but marabou mules wearing gay, you must have bought your refurbished Gaydar at the same kiosk Tom Cruise got his E-meter.

But before everyone piles on with protestations of shock and awe, allow me to pause for praise where it is due for this man Harper’s claimed to hold more sway over the political direction of evangelicalism than any pastor in America. It is quite clear that Ted Haggard is a man with admirable devotion to the Christian/GOP cause. After all, it must take enormous willpower for a meth-crazed sodomite to remove a penis from his mouth long enough to denounce homosexuality.

Haggard famously claimed that "the only difference between me and George Bush is that Bush drives a Ford and I drive a Chevy." And from what I can tell, this may be the only honest thing the man has said. Let's compare, shall we?

Against gay marriage?

Check.

Fondness for sniffing illegal white powder?

Check.

Association with gay male prostitutes?

Jeff Gannon meet Mike Jones.

But I guess it is no more difficult to be a homosexual who purports to dislike homosexuality than it is to be a strike-first warmonger who purports to follow the Prince of Peace. Indeed, if only lying were a car, instead of a way of approaching the world, maybe one of them would have finally traded it in for something else by now.

But Mr. Haggard shows no more knack for honesty than he does for picking discrete prostitutes. As an evangelical preacher, he is clearly too used to getting up in front of people who believe anything he says to lie convincingly to those still fettered by thought. Indeed, his lying skills are so uproariously amateurish that, frankly, I think he needs some lessons from a pro like Dick Cheney, a man who can say, "I'm not currently saying this" and mean it.

For example, Haggard claims he visited the man he previously had never met simply to get a "massage." The chaste, innocent purpose of this endeavor must explain why he used a pseudonym. (As Marge Davis asked, "Well what is it that they are massaging is what I want to know!").

Haggard is also claiming that he purchased a "first time customers only" introductory sample of crystal meth (meth dealers are notorious for their promotions). But threw it away. This must be our GOP version of the implausibility of "not inhaling," but, in typical Republican fashion, seems rather more blatantly wasteful. Did he not think of the consequences of this lie? Why, poor Nicole Richie is probably combing the side of every road out of Denver for that tiny baggie as I type this. But the talent-free waif searches in vain. Anyone who listens to Haggard's insistent voice messages can tell that this was someone jonesing for a fix, not a mildly curious man given to impromptu middle-age hard-drug experimentation like another 50 year-old might finally try a Mojito. Listen to the recordings: we're talking "Lindsay Lohan down to her last kilo" desperate here.

It's become almost an axiom of American unctuousness that the more preening the public scold, the more inevitable the public scald. A public paradigm usually has a private paramour. Once pompous glutton William Bennett set himself up as an arbitrator of our virtues, it was only a matter of time before the arbitrariness of his own virtues was laid out like a losing twosome in blackjack.

While this type of cynical scorn of one's own words might strike the naïve as galling, there has always been a disconnect between private men and their public protestations. But for the miracle of vote tampering and activist Supreme Court judges, evangelicals would have been as essential to Mr. Bush's election as they like to assume. And every pandering appearance near a cross or coded reference to scripture stuck like a clumsy, phosphorescent Post-It into a State of the Union address reminds us that the President is keenly aware of this perceived debt. But David Kuo, in his book Tempting Fate, tells us that such overt supplication is done with patronizing perfunctoriness. Evangelicals are actually mocked behind their backs at the White House.

The White House might have found this revelation embarrassing if people like Haggard didn't routinely prove that Evangelicals don't take anything they say seriously either. Jim Bakker got caught with his secretary while she still had her own breasts. Jimmy Swaggart got caught in a motel on a urine-stained mattress littered with unsavory streetwalkers. And Paul Crouch had to pay off his gay lover. (Mr. Crouch, appears to have been forgiven, if only because even those most strongly against homosexuality understand the urge to look for sexual outlets that don't involve Jan Crouch being naked.)

Mark Foley campaigned against legalizing gay marriage. Almost inevitably, we then find out that this was probably only because he would never tie the knot with someone old enough to legally marry. Haggard, perhaps in response to how Foley's crude, after-the-fact attempts to link his unacceptable homosexual indiscretion to a perfectly acceptable addiction, was rather smart to have a sex scandal prepackaged with an even better addiction. Well played!

Not to be outdone, Republican candidate for Florida Governor, Attorney General Charlie Crist, much like Ted Haggard, has not allowed his actual participation in homosexuality to get in the way of speaking out against the idea of homosexuality. And, frankly, I'm not sure what more readily impugns his boyfriend Bruce Carlton Jordan's character: being a convicted thief or working for that crazy sex kitten Katherine Harris. But what can you expect from the state that gave us not only the odious Miss Harris but also aquamarine appliances?

While Jesus was appallingly lax in neglecting to mention His disgust with homosexuality, He did take Republicans (for some reason, called Pharisees back then) to task for being hypocrites. As any modern Republican can tell you, Jesus, of course, had it all backwards. Homosexuality is to be despised. And lying (even about despising homosexuality) it just a quirk, something you tell people to get their money or vote. Ask Ted Haggard's best buddy James Dobson.

LAW OF THE LAND
Woman's death at hands of 'gay' her fault, says lawyer
Trial begins over death of Christian who questioned homosexual lifestyle choice

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

The Death of Mary Stachowicz

Mary Stachowicz was attacked with such ferocity the assailant's hunting knife blade was bent, but a defense attorney for her alleged attacker is painting her with the blame, saying it wasn't a "hate crime" and it happened because her comments about his "gay" lifestyle assaulted the man.

And since it was only a routine murder case, not a "hate crime," the story is getting almost no coverage from mainstream media outlets, several conservative groups have noted.

The murder trial for Nicholas Gutierrez, 23, in Stachowicz' 2002 death has begun in Chicago, where prosecutor Jim McKay described the viciousness of the attack on the 51-year-old mother of four and faithful Catholic Church member.

She was stabbed, strangled, raped and beaten, and then her body was stuffed in a crawl space under the floor of an apartment, he reported.

But the suspect's attorney, Crystal Marchigiani, alleged in her opening remarks that it was Stachowicz who attacked Gutierrez, and her verbal assault was what sparked his response.

"It happened because she could not leave him alone in his (homosexual) lifestyle," she said, describing the apparent confrontation between the two at the Sikorsky Funeral Home where Stochowicz worked and where Gutierrez lived in an apartment with his partner, Ray.

"The Gutierrez defense team's Politically Correct courtroom ploy ought to be called the 'Anti-homophobe Panic Defense,'" said Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth, a pro-family organization. "Marchigiani's is an ugly attempt to exploit the liberal caricature of Christians who oppose homosexuality as crazed haters with a penchant for aggression."

"So here we see a new defense tactic: stoking the flames of anti-Christian bigotry to save a 'gay' murderer from the punishment he deserves," he said.

According to a report from the Culture and Family Institute, weblog postings after the murder were full of anti-Christian hate statements.

"I really don't feel sorry for her. She paid a very steep price for being an arrogant religious fascist. Too bad for her," said "Iris" in a posting on the ACLU Online Forum.

"Maybe this will give pause to other people who similarly try to 'help' homosexuals," said "Silence Dogood" on the same forum.

"The mainstream media and homosexual advocacy organizations have reacted to Mary Stachowicz's murder the same way they did to 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising's torture-murder at the hands of two homosexual men in 1999: by avoiding it," said Allyson Smith of the CFI.

She noted that there was no condemnation of the murder from Human Rights Campaign, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, or the Gay and Lesbian Alliance or the Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.

One pro-homosexual group, Soulforce, which works in churches to oppose traditional Christian views of the sexual lifestyle, did make a statement to a newspaper, even though it did not release a press statement.

"We condemn this murder, like we do all murders," said Laura Montgomery Rutt, but "a hate crime needs to have an intent to intimidate a whole class of people."

Chicago police reported that on Nov. 13, 2002, an argument broke out between the two and when Stachowicz asked why Gutierrez had sex with "boys instead of girls," he erupted in rage, punching, kicking, stabbing and strangling her.

He later led police to the body and confessed.

National Review Online writer Rod Dreher has lamented that the media buzz about the case has been deafening by its silence.

According to Dreher, "One cannot help wondering if the upright citizens who report the news don't privately share the view of 'gay' blogger James Wagner, who said of Stachowicz’s strangling: 'The woman who did such great evil is dead, but unfortunately the evil and the church and the society which creates it is not, and it will continue to destroy Nicholas Gutierrez and many others. I shake, safely sitting here at home, fully understanding, and fully familiar with, the horrible impact her words must have had for a man already so terribly damaged by his society, and his own mother.'

"I believe many, and probably most, journalists share the unspoken assumption that Christians bring such trouble on themselves," wrote Dreher.

The Culture and Family Institute also quoted the victim's friend, May Coleman, who said, "Those of us who knew her (could) hear her soft voice saying something like, 'God wouldn't approve of the way you're living your life.’ That's how Mary did things."

Regional media outlets reported on the attack, but notably left out words such as "gay" or "homosexual," the institute said.

Catholic League President William Donohue said the murder is not listed as a hate crime, and won't be, even though she "was murdered for having a Catholic-informed conscience."

"Mary Stachowicz will never be remembered the way Matthew Shepard is, thus showing how politically corrupt the whole concept of hate crime legislation really is."

LaBarbera said the woman "is a modern day martyr who died because she told the truth to a man caught up in homosexuality. Her compelling story is largely unknown to Americans, because the same media that devoted millions of print column inches and broadcast minutes to covering the Matthew Shepard murder case have largely ignored Mary's story."

"The reality today is that growing secularist intolerance threatens to redefine Judeo-Christian beliefs as 'prejudice, intolerance,' or worse, 'hatred.'"

Dreher wrote that the similarities in the cases couldn't be ignored.

"Where have we heard this sort of thing before? Why, when three redneck men killed Matthew Shepard a few years ago, after the homosexual young man propositioned them in a bar. Understandably, the men found Shepard's words offensive," Dreher said.

He said there is no moral difference between Stachowicz' attack and the one on Shepard.

"Both were heinous, and both deserve publicity, but the Stachowicz case, like the case of Jesse Dirkhising earlier, is being largely ignored," Dreher wrote. Dirkhising was a 13-year-old Arkansas boy raped, tortured and strangled by a gang of "homosexuals" in 1999.

One researcher reported that in the month after Shepard's murder, Nexis recorded 3,007 stories were available about the death. However, "in the one month after Dirkhising's case, there were 46 stories."

"In Canada," Dreher noted, "Christians are having their freedom of speech and worship taken away by hate-speech laws designed to protect homosexuals from having their feelings hurt."

FOLEYGATE AND THE EIGHTH COMMANDMENT
By Robert Klein Engler (10/09/2006)

CHICAGO (9 October '06)--The Eighth Commandment, for those who may have forgotten, tells us "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." This commandment warns about misinterpreting the truth in relation to others. The commandment also cautions us not to rush to judgment and warns us not to destroy a man's reputation before the whole truth is known.

It seems homophobia is raising its ugly head in the nation's Capitol because of the Folegate scandal. Republicans as well as Democrats ought to be careful that homophobia does not lead them to bear false witness against their neighbor.

Maybe Congressman Foley is a "creep," but so far we have seen no evidence that he broke any laws. We are also supposed to be innocent until proven guilty in the United States, yet the press and the Internet have gone after Mark Foley in what looks like a witch hunt. Joe Crankshaw calls this whole affair, "Electronic mob rule."

>From what we know so far, the e-mails Congressman Foley sent have nothing overtly sexual in them. Furthermore, many say he never had sexual contact with any Congressional page, unlike Gerry Studds, who went with a page to Portugal and never resigned after that. Congressman Studds stayed in office even after he was censured by Congress.

Furthermore, the Instant Messages in question seem mutual, because they went on for a long time, even if they were or were not a "prank." We are learning, too, that the "teen" in these IMs may in fact have been 18. The Drudge Report claims, "A posting of an unredacted instant message session between Rep. Mark Foley and a former congressional page has apparently exposed the identity of the now 21 year-old accuser."

In a recent article in the L. A. Times, another former, unnamed page has come forth and admitted he is gay and at the age of 21, when he was out of the page program, had sex with Congressman Foley. The newspaper says they want to protect the identity of this man by not printing his name. What about protecting the reputation of Mr. Foley? How can you defend yourself against an unnamed accuser? This sexual encounter described in the L. A. Times may be a sin for some voters, but it is not against the law.

Before we throw Congressman Foley completely to the wolves, we better say just exactly what laws he broke. There is no law against being a creep. There is no law against being in the closet, and no law against voting for a gay marriage ban. It looks like now that Congressman Foley can truthfully say, "I never had sexual relations with that boy."

Furthermore, all of the e-mails and IMs found so far on the Internet or in newspapers were sent to young men who had left Washington, DC and were no longer involved in the page program. Why do we have to use the word "disgusting" and "predator" with glee to describe these non-sexual e-mails?

How are we to understand Scott Shuster's comments that border on being libelous? Shuster writes, "This past week it was publicly revealed that Republican Congressman Mark Foley from Florida was engaging in inappropriate sexual behavior with an under aged male congressional page." What public evidence we have so far shows that this is not true. Is asking someone what they want for their birthday sexual behavior?

Likewise, Andy Martin seems in a rush to judgment when he claims, "The FBI is searching for a local boy, someone in the Washington, DC area...that went to Foley's house and did have "contact" with Marky Mark. They will find that boy and, when they do, all hell will break loose."

Maybe Congressman Foley was too close to those pages, maybe he wasn't. Maybe the pages are gay and were going through a "homosexual panic," something a few gay young men experience before they confront honestly their sexual orientation. Be this as it may, there is the even more troubling issue of who released these IMs and e-mails and why?

It should be especially troubling to gays if Democratic operatives were behind the release to the public of Foley's e-mails and Instant Messages solely for political gain. It is morally wrong to ruin a man's life just because it gives someone a political advantage over their opponent.

It is morally wrong, also, to bear false witness against your neighbor. Many of Mark Foley's accusers may be doing that. Many forget, too, that there is a big difference between a doubtful e-mail or Instant Message and an actual blue dress from the Gap.

Congressman Foley may have had a weakness. We all do. He also did some good work while in Congress. The talking heads on television should remember that when it comes to Washington, D. C., it is not with an excuse but with charity that we say, "Let him without sin cast the first stone."

All gays, regardless of their political party, are hurt by media gay bashing. It especially hurts those who work with young people. This scandal casts a chill on straights, too, who have close contact with youths, like wrestling coaches and Boy Scout leaders.

What will any male teacher say, now, when someone that does not like him describes his behavior as "overly-friendly?" Foleygate opens up suspicions in people's hearts and gives them a greater opportunity to bear false witness against a neighbor they do not like or find "creepy."

In a broader context, if we do find that false witness is being brought against Mark Foley by political operatives from the left, then it will be another sign that we are living through the death of liberalism. When the left begins to eat their children, you know they are desperate. Are liberals now beginning to cannibalize closeted gays, the very people who often come to them for shelter?

When they look the matter over closely, the so-called Christian Right will weight this scandal justly. Republicans know that the Christian Right does not like sex scandals of whatever kind. That's why Republicans try to deal with them quickly. In Illinois, Jack Ryan was asked to step down from his bid to be Senator. Ryan's scandal allegedly involved only him and his wife. No laws were broken here, either.

To use political and media power to bear false witness is another matter. It is possible that the Christian Right will rightly conclude that abuse by the media and politicians in Foleygate is a greater evil than Mark Foley's questionable sexual behavior. Given this, they will not stay home election day, but go to vote.

Foleygate, unfortunately, may show us that in their quest for power, some politicians will do anything. They will abuse the very gay people they claim to support in order to gain a political advantage. After this scandal that the left may have fueled, it is beyond the reasoning of many how this very same left expects to pass gay marriage into law.

Like that village in Vietnam, the left may have destroyed gays in order to save them. Could it be that with Foleygate the left has shot itself in the foot, again? Or, better said, in another part of the male anatomy.

Robert Klein Engler lives in Chicago. He is a graduate of the University of Chicago Divinity School. His book, A WINTER OF WORDS, about the turmoil at Daley College, is available from amazon.com.

This posting, by Todd Hill in the Campus Progress Blog tells how many of us feel today, thinking about Congressman Foley. PAT

Post from Campus Progress Blog:
Foley Sets Equal Rights for LGBT Americans Back Years

By ToddHill - Oct 4th, 2006 at 11:41 am EDT
As disgusting as former Congressman Mark Foley's actions were, and no matter how many people voice outrage at his actions, one fact is quite clear: Foley has set equal rights and opportunities way back for gay Americans.

I knew the very minute this scandal broke that our political opponents on the Right, including the Moral soldiers of the Christian extremists, would be pointing to this scenario as the very reason homosexuals should be condemned in our society, and how gays can't be trusted to be around children because they will prey on them like a spider prey's on a trapped fly. According to Texas Women's University around 95% of all child molesters are heterosexual, not homosexual. The claims by some that the majority of child predators are homosexuals are simply, and unequivocally not true. I challenge my fellow members of the LGBT community to stand up and denounce such unfounded comparisons in order to salvage efforts towards equality and opportunity.

I'm gay, and was molested as a child. The last thing I have a desire to do is to rob the innocence of another child, especially one of the same gender as me, and the same goes for most homosexuals who might also have been molested. Being molested plays no role in someone becoming, or being, homosexual. I know for a fact that thousands of Americans are molested today, and equal amounts, if not more, in years past. A large percentage of those individuals have no desire to turn around and rob the innocence of another child much like they were at such a young, and vulnerable age. The reason men and women molest children is because they are easy prey. They are easy to manipulate, control, terrorize, threaten, and take advantage of; it is the very cycle of nature at work. They rob them of their innocence and this action has no limitations in of it. It's the same reason it is so easy for a bully to pick on someone smaller then them instead of picking on someone their own size. Or the very reason larger animals that desire food will attack the smallest or weakest link of a herd in order to best yield themselves food to eat.

It is incredibly important to understand the difference between molestation and pedophilia, which often get blurred during such spats of hateful rhetoric towards gay America. Pedophiles are males or females with sexual thoughts or desires for younger, even pre-pubescent children. A pedophile may have the desire for sex with a child, but never act on it. A child-molester has the same desires but actually, physically acts upon them.

Here are the facts as we know them today. Foley claims to have been molested as a child, was a closeted homosexual, preyed on young teenaged boys, and now blames alcoholism for all his problems. Mark Foley's main problem was the fact he hid who he truly was, which resulted in him sneaking around like a cat at night, and now forces his lawyer to tell the world he was gay when everyone already knew that, and attempts to divulge sorrow from the masses because he was molested. As if that is supposed to give him a free pass for his disgusting actions. Foley was a pedophile, not a child-molester, and his preference was for young male-to-old male sexual molestation in his mind. Homosexuality and molestation are not one in the same, they are polar opposites. Religious extremists have now seized this story as their moral mission to once again piñata the LGBT community for even existing, instead of fully investigating the ranks of their own clergy who so often physically molest young men and women in communities across the United States. The Roman Catholic sex abuse cases are the most recent example of this, including allegations the current Pope Benedict XVI was involved in the cover up. The fact is that Mark Foley waited too late in his life to come to terms with his sexuality, and because he did so he acted upon his homosexual tendencies by dreaming of sex with younger men while living the life society deems is the normal life to live. Had he come to terms with his sexuality at a younger age he could have lived a comfortable life with a youthful partner before he reached his current age. All too often gay men who wait till late in life to come to terms with their sexuality wish to relieve their youth all over again in the life they should have lived to begin with.

It's important that members of the LGBT community take the lead in educating Americans on the facts about pedophilia and child molesters and dispelling the myths that there is a connection between homosexuality and these heinous acts. Otherwise the agenda of equality and opportunity will continue to be a distant achievement to reach as extremists will frame the debate on their terms, not ours.