Congressional Page Scandal

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

A Republican Congressman from Florida resigns in disgrace when caught sexually pursuing underage male pages in the Capitol.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/us...ge&oref=slogin

Guess how this guy voted on issues of concern to LGBT persons. It's hard to feel sympathy for closeted gay politicians. He should have been "outed" years ago, in my opinion.

Steven Webster

[Daniel]

There is also this:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Foleys-Folly.html

and this:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...w123452D40.DTL

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/0...e_n_30569.html

to contemplate.

What I find interesting about this situation is that other gay House members- Democrates like Studds and Frank - survived this kind of scandal by being open and forthright in the long run. One gets the strong impression that this is not an option for Mr. Foley: his voting record and party hardly give me cover. Studds had relationships with at least two male pages while Frank consorted with a male call-boy. And all Foley is 'guilty' of here (so far) is making a pass.

I'm not saying he should have stayed in power. His party is, after all, the one pushing for an amendment to the Constitution. If you live by the sword.....

One wonders: did party leaders push him out when they couldn't manage the situation anymore?

[Jamie McDaniel]

When I heard about this, I was very curious. I guess it is the whole closeted Republican in adulthood thing that I find so bizarre. 365gay.com reports that Foley was one of the Republicans who did vote against the federal marriage amendment, though. I don't know about his voting record on other LGBT issues.

I keep seeing the reports state that one of the pages described Foley's emails as "sick, sick, sick, sick." I first read those, and while they were inappropriate (asking for a picture, would you like a birthday gift) I certainly would not describe those individual emails as "sick." However, now ABC is reporting an instant message exchange (pdf) between Foley and another page that took place in 2003. After reading that, I agree that Foley should no longer be in congress and there should be an investigation.

Another thing I find disturbing are the comments on the news reports. Some people are identifying themselves as conservative republicans, calling Foley a homosexual pedophile, and stating that such people should be "strung up." Wouldn't Foley's actions be much closer to sexual harassment, not pedophilia? Sexual harassment implies unwanted advances, and pedophilia involves children. Now when someone is underage, even if the advances are not rebuked, we still prohibit such actions to protect young people. So even if it is not harassment, there is a serious problem with Foley's actions.

I used to hear heterosexual men call pretty teenage girls "jail-bait." Meaning, of course, that until she crossed the age of consent line, sexual relations with her would get them jail. I just find it curious that some heterosexual men use the term "jail-bait" when talking about 16 or 17 year-old girls while the term "pedophilia" seems to be brought up if it involves a homosexual. I should say that I haven't seen any major news source using that term in connection with Foley, just in the comments from readers.

What do you think?

[BruceChris]

That huffingtonpost.com link that you posted contains the names of how many thousand alleged Republican perverts and/or child molesters? I'm sorry, but I totally lost count before I got even part way down the page. Somebody either really has an ax to grind, or they have WAY too much time on their hands. And Neal Horsley was accused of having sex with a WHAT? Well, at least he kept it within the species. (O.K., O.K., maybe I have too much time on my hands)

Just Kickin' Back, Bruce Chris

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by BruceChris

That huffingtonpost.com link that you posted contains the names of how many thousand alleged Republican perverts and/or child molesters?

Interesting. I took a good look at that page now that you mentioned it. Yes. Someone is keeping tabs on the peccadillos of Republicans. Hypocrisy revealed in the Party of God? Perhaps someone is doing the same for Democracts somewhere!

Originally Posted by Jamie

Wouldn't Foley's actions be much closer to sexual harassment, not pedophilia? Sexual harassment implies unwanted advances, and pedophilia involves children. Now when someone is underage, even if the advances are not rebuked, we still prohibit such actions to protect young people. So even if it is not harassment, there is a serious problem with Foley's actions.

I think, because of the laws regarding the young man's age, it makes it a matter of pedophilia. From what I've read, he may be prosecuted under the same laws he helped draft re the internet even though no sexual relations were involved (as far as we know!). It's a crime, therefore, to make a pass at an under-aged kid via the internet.

Is there a double standard here as to how straight and gay men are referred to in these matters at the water-cooler? Certainly! In casual conversation, when girls are involved (with straight men), they are often blamed for the seduction. Boys (with gay men) are not. What's seems to be at stake here is the perception of power and status of men. And gay men don't share coveted status as yet. It's Ok for a straight guy to get it on with a girl- a mark on his belt, but the gay guy is a pedophile. Of course, both situations are abuses of power. You have a person taking advantage of someone. I think that is morally and ethically wrong, no matter how you slice and dice it. The straight guy with the underage girl is a pedophile too.

An aside: as an unexperienced young adult (over the age of consent), I experienced the advances of a man who- to put it simply- took advantage of me. The repercussions were many. The sad fact is that the person doing the abusing often doesn't see themselves as doing anything wrong. They can only see what they want. That is their first priority.

addendum:

Several key persons involved don't seem to know about the matter- a very curious thing indeed. Who, one wonders, is investigating the investigators?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/01/wa...rtner=homepage

[midtnscott]

Let's be a little sympathetic to Mark Foley. Remember how we were before we came out. He's obviously been going through a lot in his mind and life and has been wondering about his sexuality. I don't know his heart and won't judge him. It's between God, him and the courts.

That being said, the emails we DO know about were, at the least inappropriate and at the worst sexual harassment. Apparently, there are more that are more explicit and that is a crime. Pedophilia - NO! But it is solicitation of a minor. If the page's family refuse to press charges it will be difficult, but not impossible, to prosecute him.

The real issue is that the Republican House leadership knew most of this at least as far back as 2005 and did nothing in order to keep political power.