In today’s NYTs, the columnist Frank Rich gets to call me ugly names again, this time because of one George Rekers, a long-time writer and activist in the anti-gay rights movement who, according to some recent news reports, also consorts with male escorts. You can already see why such a story is perfect for Frank Rich.
Rich links me to Rekers by suggesting that I relied on Rekers’ anti-gay writings during my testimony as an expert witness in the Prop 8 trial in California. That’s not true, but the story has some complexity, none of which is good for me, or for that matter, for others who may believe as I do on the issue of same-sex marriage.
When you serve as an expert witness, the main thing you do, before actually taking the stand, is prepare something called a report. This report is used extensively by lawyers on both sides, and perhaps also by the judge, to get a clear understanding of what you, the expert witness, intend to say, when you are on the stand.
I wrote every word of my report personally, including the footnotes and the cited scholarly sources, and I certainly stand by it. It’s available for anyone to read. There is no reference to George Rekers in this document, and for good reason — I did not rely on anything he wrote, and to the best of my knowledge, I have never met the man and have never read anything that he has written. I knew via the press and the grapevine that he was an anti-gay rights writer, and for exactly that reason, I never sought to connect with him in any way. Quite the opposite.
A few days ago I learned from the Advocate that there is apparently a separate, lawyer-generated document somewhere in the court system listing the sources that I, the expert witness, relied on in preparing my testimony, and that an article by Rekers is on that list. Why it would be there, I haven’t a clue. If the lawyers included it, it was a mistake. If I signed off on it, it was an oversight. One irony here is that, in my actual expert report, which is available for anyone to read (footnotes and all), as well as in my actual testimony on the stand, I clearly and emphatically reject the kind of homophobia which Rekers appears, at least in part, to stand for.
Not that any of this matters to Frank Rich, which is why my two young children are once again going to read in the Paper of Record that their father is a stupid bigot.
But maybe, in the largest sense, Rich has a point. I said in an earlier post that there really is a lot of anti-gay bigotry out there, including within the movement to oppose same-sex marriage. I am a part of that movement, and so if I get slimed every once in a while by the likes of Frank Rich, maybe there is some poetic justice therein, notwithstanding my careful, self-serving listing of facts. That’s probably the way Rich looks at it.
… for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.
Categories: General
Seems as if anyone who advocates a position on these “hot button” issues if sure to come under intense scrutiny even to the point of unjustified name calling. I never believed in the old nursery rhyme: ” sticks and stones” because “names” can cause harm and often the harm unseen is the one most often felt alone. There are no simple solutions. Its too easy just to say ignore people who call names and let time do its healing. You can “call them out” and then even that is used against you unjustly. But then you have done all you can do. Everyone makes their own opinion.
David, let me just say I have sooo much respect for you. Your thoughts and writing on these subjects gives me a lot of hope for the next generation. We need more advocates like you. Thank you for being brave in the face of your peers and standing by what you believe in even though it conflicts with popular notions.