You write as though this were simply a case of gay activists rejoicing over the discomfiture and embarrassment of a man who has just been quietly getting on with his life, perhaps suffering internal conflict but doing no harm to a soul, and whose indiscretions, whatever they may be, have come to light. It isn’t.

Speaking for myself, I find it extremely gratifying that his credibility has been shattered in this way, not because of any personal animosity towards him – I’ve never even met him – but because the mindset that he represents fills me with horror and revulsion. It’s not just a matter of some cranky theory (e.g. creationism, geocentricism or perpetual motion) which has no actual concrete effect on real life. As Rachel Maddow puts it, he is a man who has built his career on trying to make life miserable and dangerous for gay people and who is still doing it. “…He’s quite actively engaged in trying to change this country [America] to make it a more difficult place to be gay – particularly a more difficult place to be a young gay person.”

This episode should serve as a salutary warning to others who are making an occupation out of playing dishonest and abusive games with other people’s lives.

On a different note… assuming that he was having some sort of sexual realtions with this young man… I am wondering if the issue with Dr. Rekers is not that he is gay but that he has some fascination with having sex with young ‘boyish’ men (a form of pseudo-pedophilia) similar to Haggard’s story of sex with a young male prostitute. And if so could this be a possible explanation for the severe anti-gay attitudes that come out of people like him? Perhaps in the process of battling their own demons they are also severely against all same sex attractions in people and seek to change them with the hopes of changing their own attractions. I think this is called transference. I am not painting all who believe in orientation change with the same brush here. I am just wondering if this might be possible for some. On the other hand perhaps I am just making illusory correlations such as what Dr Throckmorton mentioned earlier.

Truth is a defence. We know Rekers lies under oath, that’s been found to be the case by at least two judges.

We must all be careful not to only see what we want to see. Hence my references. I still am probably biased, but my prejudice precludes me from seeing exactly where.