You don't want the court to define you

I haven't wanted to bother with this particular scandal -- ho hum, another anti-gay "expert" is caught with his pants down in the company of a rentboy -- but there is now a twist that interests me. George Rekers was paid by the state of Florida to testify against repealing the ban of adoption by gays. He found "Lucien" on a rentboy website and hired him for a 10-day European vacation so that Lucien could "lift his luggage" and provide extensive nude massages. If you really want more detail there are numerous gay blogs happy to share.

Rekers is now threatening a defamation lawsuit because some Florida newspapers have said he's gay, something he hotly denies. If the suit goes to court it will hinge on what is the definition of homosexuality. Is homosexuality an orientation in which one is attracted to people of the same sex -- one who is aroused by same-sex contact? A trial witness from a mental health profession or psychological organization would testify to that commonly accepted definition of the term. However, the anti-gay crowd, of which Rekers had been a head honcho, defines the term differently. There is no such thing as homosexual orientation, there is only homosexual behavior. They insist on this definition because they want to claim everyone is straight, only deviants engage in homosexual behavior, and they can be cured from doing that. This then requires defining homosexual behavior. Rekers can then claim he and Lucien did only certain things (though Rekers was clearly aroused, according to Lucien), but they didn't do those things, so he can't be gay. All a part of the linguistic gymnastics.

What happens, then, when a court says Rekers' definition is nonsense? The court just might confirm what Rekers is trying to avoid by saying, "Yes, you are gay." Commenters wonder if that makes him a Rekersexual. Does Rekers want that risk? Perhaps the court would simply throw the case out by saying accusing someone of being gay is not defamation.