This is an interesting article entitled, Rekers ’Rent Boy’ Scandal Casts Cloud Over Anti-Gay ’Expert’ Testimony, that highlights at least two important points related to hypocrisy regarding a professing Christian condemning homosexuality on the one hand and also hiring a rent boy on the other.
There are primary and secondary ramifications to the European trip taken by anti-gay leader George Rekers in the company of a 20-year-old male escort who described the sexual massages he said he gave Rekers on a daily basis.
The most obvious effect of the story has been an outcry of hypocrisy: after all, Rekers--a longtime foe of GLBT equality who co-founded the anti-gay religious group Family Research Council in 1983 and sat on the board of NARTH, a group that claims gays can be "cured" and turned heterosexual--has testified in court on more than one occasion as an "expert witness" on gays, declaring to courts in Arkansas and Florida that gay and lesbian prospective parents should not be allowed to adopt children (tellingly, he said the same about Native Americans).
But a second, potentially wider-reaching effect may resonate long after the sensation and controversy fades from the media: the Rekers scandal may put a pall on so-called "expert testimony" used against gays in courtrooms where cases involving family parity are underway. Indeed, though Rekers did not testify in the court challenge to California’s anti-gay voter initiative Proposition 8, his testimony from an earlier case in another state was still cited, the New York Times reported in a May 18 article....
"Each lawyer must tell the court if he comes to know that one of his witnesses has given ’false’ testimony," New York University legal ethics scholar Stephen Gillers told the New York Times. Added Gillers, "It is not enough for the attorney general simply to refrain from relying on the testimony in his brief and argument. He has an affirmative duty to speak up."....
Rekers added, "If you talk with my travel assistant... you will find I spent a great deal of time sharing scientific information on the desirability of abandoning homosexual intercourse, and I shared the Gospel of Jesus Christ with him in great detail."....
The first point can be handled with dispatch: the louder someone condemns another or a behavior, that condemnation tells us a lot more about them than it does about what he or she is condemning. I know of no credible social scientist who would testify that the sexual orientation of parents is deleterious to the raising of children. What studies have been done show, rather, that it's the love in the home that creates a good, nurturing, environment for the child. This Rekers incident rightfully must call into question all "expert testimony" that alleges that same-sex couples must be denied equal rights that accrue to heterosexual couples!
The second point, however, is also very important. Notice the phrase Rekers used, "... I spent a great deal of time sharing scientific information on the desirability of abandoning homosexual intercourse...." Rekers might well have convinced himself that one is not Gay if there is no anal intercourse. So, when Rekers talks of "homosexual intercourse" he is making that designation the very definition of one's being Gay or not. If no such activity occurs, he may well have convinced himself, as well as he is trying to convince others, that he is not Gay.
For a man to get a hand job from another man, of course, does not necessarily denote that that person is Gay. Being gay has to do with more than sexual activity, usually must also denote an emotional attachment on some level that Rekers may or may not have had, unless that activity is a central part of the person's life, in which case the designation of "Gay" is appropriate.
However, notice the self-loathing that Rekers undoubtedly has by his vociferously denying being Gay, and also considering the term "Gay" as referring to him as being defamatory. By so doing, it seems that Rekers, and many others like him who stridently condemn what they, themselves, are, engage in Reaction Formation to try to convince others as well as themselves that they couldn't possibly be what they are condemning. So, it seems that in his mind, since he allegedly never engaged in anal intercourse, he is not Gay.
People like Rekers, if he is in fact Gay, who deny to themselves and to others a core part of who they are, live terrible lives! They deny a core part of their identity, and of their very selves, do so publicly and, as in the case of many strident homophobes, cause the suffering of countless numbers of people and families, all in the name of denying to themselves who they really are.
Clearly, by Rekers' definition he is not Gay, even if he did get a sexual massage from another man, since he allegedly didn't engage in "homosexual intercourse," which he allegedly uses to determine whether or not he is Gay. This is a convenient operational definition for him, and an easy way out of a label that he terribly resents as applied to him when a bright light is shined on his hypocrisy.
The ultimate tragedy, beyond the suffering that the Rekers' of the world endure, is both the suffering they visit on other people, and their undoubted shame and self-loathing that usually comes to the fore when they are labelled with a label that should have no more of a negative connotation than having brown eyes would have.
God is a God of variety; God specializes in diversity! If Rekers really wanted to share "the Gospel of Jesus Christ with him in great detail," he would have told that young man, Jo-vanni Roman, and all people who would listen, that very fact!