Originally Posted By DlandDug <a href="http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/first-openly-gay-us-congressman-dies/20061014102209990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001" target="_blank">http://articles.news.aol.com/n ews/_a/first-openly-gay-us-congressman-dies/20061014102209990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001</a> EXCERPTS: >>BOSTON (Oct. 14) - Former U.S. Rep. Gerry Studds, the first openly gay person elected to Congress, died early Saturday at Boston Medical Center, several days after he collapsed while walking his dog, his husband said.<< >>(Dean) Hara, who married Studds shortly after gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts in 2004, said Studds was a pioneer who gave courage to gay people everywhere by winning re-election after publicly acknowledging his homosexuality. "He gave people of his generation, or my generation, of future generations, the courage to do whatever they wanted to do," he said. Studds was first elected in 1972 and represented Cape Cod and the Islands, New Bedford, and the South Shore for 12 Congressional terms. He retired from Congress in 1997. In 1983, Studds acknowledged his homosexuality after a former Congressional page revealed he'd had a relationship with Studds a decade earlier. Studds was censured by the House for having sexual relations with the page. He acknowledged having sex with a 17-year-old male page in 1973 and making sexual advances to two others and admitted an error in judgment, but did not apologize.<< I scarcely know how to react to this odd, odd turn of events. My heart always goes out whenever anyone dies-- particularly for those they leave behind. At the same time, I am arrested by this statement: "He gave people of his generation, or my generation, of future generations, the courage to do whatever they wanted to do." In light of his past history, and present events, I find it an odd turn of phrase.
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF Well, I think I've offered my opinion on this subject many times, so this speaks for itself. >>Benefits Denied to Ex-Lawmaker's Spouse <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-studds-benefits" target="_blank">http://www.chicagotribune.com/ news/nationworld/sns-ap-studds-benefits</a>,1,2080439.story?coll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true By STEVE LeBLANC Associated Press Writer Published October 17, 2006, 5:44 PM CDT BOSTON -- Former Rep. Gerry Studds, the first openly gay member of Congress, was married to another man in Massachusetts at the time of his death, but the federal government has refused to pay death benefits to his spouse. Studds married Dean Hara in 2004 after gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts. But Hara will not be eligible to receive any portion of Studds' estimated $114,337 annual pension because the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act bars the federal government from recognizing Studds' marriage. Peter Graves, a spokesman for the Office of Personnel Management, which administers the congressional pension program, said same-sex partners are not recognized as spouses for any marriage benefits. He said Studds' case was the first of its kind known to the agency. Under federal law, pensions can be denied only to lawmakers' same-sex partners and people convicted of espionage or treason, Graves said. Graves said Studds could have purchased an insurable interest annuity, similar to an insurance policy, which is allowed under both the civil service and federal employee retirement system and is not affected by the Defense of Marriage Act. Graves said he did not know if Studds used that option. Pete Sepp, spokesman for the nonprofit watchdog group National Taxpayers Union, estimated Studds' annual pension at $114,337. That would have made Hara eligible for a lifetime annual pension of about $62,000, which would grow with inflation, if the marriage were recognized by the federal government, Sepp said. Hara, 48, declined to comment on the matter. Gary Buseck, legal director for an advocacy group called Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, said Studds' case may offer "a moment of education for Congress." "Now they have a death in the congressional family of one of their distinguished members whose spouse is being treated differently than any of their spouses," Buseck said.<<
Originally Posted By JohnS1 It's funny that people in Congress weren't as supportive in the case of the latest member of Congress to have involvement with pages. Interesting.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<At the same time, I am arrested by this statement: "He gave people of his generation, or my generation, of future generations, the courage to do whatever they wanted to do." In light of his past history, and present events, I find it an odd turn of phrase.>> I wouldn't call it an "odd" turn of phrase so much as I would call it a "poorly chosen" or "inarticulate" turn of phrase. It seems clear that Mr. Hara didn't mean to endorse making sexual advances toward one's subordinates. He was noting that despite the revelation of Gerry Studds' failings, and -- more importantly -- despite the revelation that he was homosexual, voters were able to look at his accomplishments, his over-all qualifications, and re-elect him. For what it's worth, I don't defend sexual harrassment, and I'm not certain that an unrepentant harrasser should be re-elected, whatever the circumstance. But I do find it very encouraging that the voters did not so demonize him for being gay that they dropped all support for him. His re-election was an important sociological event, and it happened because of the legitimate work he had done.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.humanevents.com/winningthefuture.php?id=17562" target="_blank">http://www.humanevents.com/win ningthefuture.php?id=17562</a> Article by Newt Gingrich.... >>The Foley Mess Mark Foley resigned from Congress within two hours of a reporter's showing him his sexually explicit instant messages to a former page. He had no choice except to resign, because the Republican leadership would have expelled him. What has amazed me is the one-sided anti-Republican news media smear and lynch mob which then ensued. After a few days of the one-sided anti-Republican coverage, I began to speak out because I was witness to the last two Democratic efforts to deal with sex scandals in the House -- the page scandal of 1983 and the Barney Frank male prostitute/parking ticket fixing scandal of 1990. In both cases the Democrat Party wanted the mildest possible punishment. In both cases the Republicans insisted on tougher penalties. The 1983 page case involved one Democrat and one Republican, so it was a bipartisan problem. At that time, I insisted that the sanction on those congressmen be raised from reprimand (which had no impact on their careers) to censure (which blocked them from a committee or subcommittee chairmanship). I threatened to move expulsion if the penalty was not increased. Against substantial Democratic opposition, the penalty was increased from reprimand to censure. The Republican was contrite and ashamed. The Democrat was militant and unapologetic. Even though Gerry Studds (Mass.), the Democrat, was convicted by the Ethics Committee of having sex with one page over a long period of time (beginning when the page was 16) and making advances to two other pages, he received three rounds of applause from the Democratic side of the aisle when he adamantly defended his actions. After his censure, Nancy Pelosi voted three times to make Gerry Studds chairman of a committee, even though he was convicted of sex with an under-age page. It makes her current promises to be tougher than Republicans dishonest and hypocritical. The Barney Frank case involved fixing 33 parking tickets for a male prostitute who was running a prostitution ring out of Frank's apartment (without the congressman's knowledge, according to his testimony, even though he had fixed 33 tickets for him). The Democrats voted 252-2 against a motion to censure Frank for abusing his office by fixing the tickets for his prostitute roommate. I offered that motion to censure, and Nancy Pelosi voted against it. Republicans should be firm about setting a higher standard on protecting pages than the Democrats did. Republicans should be firm about insisting on a higher standard of enforcing the rules than the Democrats did. Republicans should not passively allow themselves to be lectured by hypocritical Democrats or the news media about their record compared to the Democrats when they were in charge.<<
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 Great point, BlueDevilSF. People argue that gays are no longer discriminated against. I'd say that being denied $114,337 a year for being gay is a pretty significant form of discrimination.
Originally Posted By debtee ^ I agree inspector! <Studds was censured by the House for having sexual relations with the page. He acknowledged having sex with a 17-year-old male page in 1973 and making sexual advances to two others and admitted an error in judgment, but did not apologize.<< I don't know of this man or his political attributes and I'm not saying his behaviour is correct but there have been many many MEN in power that have had sex with female interns or pages and abused their power. Bill Clinton comes to mind and he was your president! I wonder if he keeps his pension!
Originally Posted By gadzuux I would ask newt ... >> He had no choice except to resign, because the Republican leadership would have expelled him. << The same republican leadership that for ten years did nothing except dither and put out fires? He makes them sound like paragons of virtue, ignoring facts in evidence. This whole column seeks to shift the discussion away from the facts and over to how rotten those democrats are. Red meat for the faithful, a laughable attempt at distraction for everybody else.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Red meat for the faithful, a laughable attempt at distraction for everybody else.> Yes, please don't try to distract gadzuux with facts. Democrats are good and Republicans are bad, no matter what they actually do.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer So having "interent sexual discussions" with a 17 year old is bad and awful, but having REAL sex with a 16 year old is OK, and then deserving of three rounds of applause from the Democratic side of the aisle when he was being censured... Double Standard anyone???? As for Bill Clinton, at least he had sex with an adult, and not a minor... And why did he get into trouble, not for the sex itself, but for lying under oath.....
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> And why did he get into trouble, not for the sex itself, but for lying under oath ... << And what business does the GOP asking people under oath who they've had relations with?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Post 10, was than ACTUAL OPINION from Darkbeer??????? Nah, can't be.
Originally Posted By debtee ^ I'm sorry guys, I did not mean to upset anyone with my Bill Clinton comment. My point was only that for hundreds of years in all forms of power, men have had sexual relations with young women while under their guidance and from what I read above, this man was made an example of because the "relations" was with a young man. No abuse of power is right but it does happen. I also have nothing against Bill Clinton and have no alliance to any of your political parties. We hardly ever seen anything on our TV about your presidents unless it's a big news story except recently, where President Bush seems to make so many gaffs publicly, the media have a field day and play them all across our screens again and again for the world to see, so he comes off as not looking very smart for a man with so much power!
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>The same republican leadership that for ten years did nothing except dither and put out fires? He makes them sound like paragons of virtue, ignoring facts in evidence.<< Facts? To what facts do you refer? So far we know that a set of annoying emails were presented to Hastert's office staff, leading to an agreement that Foley would cease and desist. Other than that, there had been a nagging sense that Foley was not to be trusted around young kids. That's it. That's all we positively know that the Republican leadership knew. There hasn't even been any substantive "evidence" beyond that. But hey, just like "Bush lied," keep repeating it over and over, and eventually a credulous public just might accept it as truth.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<As for Bill Clinton, at least he had sex with an adult, and not a minor...>> I believe the age of consent in Washington, DC, Our Nation's Capitol, is 16 years old. The issue we're discussing here is harrassment, not statutory rape or pedastery. <<[Mark Foley] had no choice except to resign, because the Republican leadership would have expelled him.>> LMAO, Newt! Would that have been the same Republican leadership that made Clarence Thomas a Supreme Court Judge?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <And what business does the GOP asking people under oath who they've had relations with?> They don't, and didn't.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<So Clarence Thomas likes pages too, huh?>> No, apparently he prefers his porn in video format. But he will settle for magazines when necessary.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Would that have been the same Republican leadership that made Clarence Thomas a Supreme Court Judge?<< Clarence Thomas wasn't made an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court by Republican leaders. Besides, the charges against him were never substantiated. The GOP has been very open in their condemnation of Foley's behavior. Like it or not, there's no getting around it. Bringing up a 15 year old confirmation hearing with a completely different set of circumstances hardly illuminates the issue.
