Openly Gay Alabama Lawmaker Threatens To 'Out' Colleagues' Extramarital Affairs

[Gingersnap]

Openly Gay Alabama Lawmaker Threatens To 'Out' Colleagues' Extramarital Affairs
Especially those family-values, traditional-marriage types

1.27.2015 News Trey Sanchez


Alabama's first openly gay state lawmaker threatened to "out" fellow elected officials engaged in extramarital affairs, especially those that champion family values and traditional marriage.

State Rep. Patricia Todd's (D-Birmingham) ire came to a boil after several state officials reacted negatively to a recent federal ruling that declared Alabama's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional.

Alabama House Speaker Mike Hubbard called the ruling "outrageous" and said that the will of 80% of Alabama citizens who voted in 2006 to define marriage as between a man and a woman has been overturned by the act of "a single unelected and unaccountable federal judge." He added, "The Legislature will encourage a vigorous appeals process, and we will continue defending the Christian conservative values that make Alabama a special place to live."

Leading that appeal is State Attorney General Luther Strange, who has filed for a stay of the judges' orders.

In an emotional response, Todd lashed out on Facebook:

This (is) a time where you find out who are accepting, loving people. To say I am disappointed in Speaker Hubbard comment's [sic] and Attorney General Strange [sic] choice to appeal the decision is an understatement. I will not stand by and allow legislators to talk about 'family values' when they have affairs, and I know of many who are and have. I will call our elected officials who want to hide in the closet OUT.

In a follow-up interview on Monday with Al.com, a still-upset Todd defended her words, stating, "Don't start throwing bricks at my window when yours is already cracked as well." She also said she believes public sentiment has changed in the years since the 2006 vote and Alabama's leadership "needs to recognize that now."

Speaker Hubbard responded to Todd's Facebook outburst:

I consider Rep. Todd a friend, and we have always enjoyed a good and cordial relationship, so I am sorry that she is upset about my remarks. We do have a fundamental disagreement on allowing same-sex marriages in Alabama, and I will continue to voice my opinion on this important social issue, just as I expect she will continue to voice hers, but we can disagree without being disagreeable.

I would be happy if politicians who are "outed" after criminal and tax convictions could simply be forced out of office. How many do we have who have been convicted of tax evasion or other white collar crimes and continue to serve?

Frankly, I don't see the connection here. If the purpose is to hold out gay marriage as being desirable then pointing out that regular marriage is no bed of roses probably isn't the way to do that.

Truth Revolt

[Adam]

Well, that's Birmingham for you.

[phillygirl]

Don't start throwing bricks at my window when yours is already cracked as well." She also said she believes public sentiment has changed in the years since the 2006 vote and Alabama's leadership "needs to recognize that now

I don't know anything about Alabama, but I think, generally speaking, she is correct here. That does not, in my mind, change the issue. I have no objection to a vote on the issue in determining how the population defines the state recognition of marriage.

[Gingersnap]

I don't know anything about Alabama, but I think, generally speaking, she is correct here. That does not, in my mind, change the issue. I have no objection to a vote on the issue in determining how the population defines the state recognition of marriage.

I think it's absurd but amusing. You want heterosexual-style marriage but you want to point out how often people cheat the spouses you now want to acquire.

Priceless.

[Norm dePlume]

Frankly, I don't see the connection here. If the purpose is to hold out gay marriage as being desirable then pointing out that regular marriage is no bed of roses probably isn't the way to do that.

The purpose is not to hold out gay marriage as being desirable. Ms. Todd apparently desires it, and she probably doesn't care if anyone else (aside from her intended) desires it. She isn't trying to convince you to get gay married.

The purpose is to call out the hypocrisy of politicos who ruin their own marriages but claim that recognizing gay marriage is somehow damaging to traditional marriage.

[Gingersnap]

The purpose is not to hold out gay marriage as being desirable. Ms. Todd apparently desires it, and she probably doesn't care if anyone else (aside from her intended) desires it. She isn't trying to convince you to get gay married.

The purpose is to call out the hypocrisy of politicos who ruin their own marriages but claim that recognizing gay marriage is somehow damaging to traditional marriage.

Kind of a fail, then. No reason to believe to believe gays will do a better job in the marital hypocrisy department.

[Celeste Chalfonte]

I would be happy if politicians who are "outed" after criminal and tax convictions could simply be forced out of office. How many do we have who have been convicted of tax evasion or other white collar crimes and continue to serve?

Frankly, I don't see the connection here. If the purpose is to hold out gay marriage as being desirable then pointing out that regular marriage is no bed of roses probably isn't the way to do that.
Truth Revolt

Completely misses the point. How does one claim to champion the "sanctity of marriage" and "Christian values" while committing adultery, fornicating, and lying? Gay people don't claim the right to marry on the ground that our marriages will be perfect, but on the ground that we are US citizens entitled to equal protection of the law. People like Hubbard claim the exclusive right to marriage because it's Christian institution and they're the moral and and rightful owners of that institution and we're not.

[Norm dePlume]

Kind of a fail, then. No reason to believe to believe gays will do a better job in the marital hypocrisy department.

Also not the point. When they let black people eat at the lunch counter, they didn't have to promise better table manners than the white folks.

[Celeste Chalfonte]

I don't know anything about Alabama, but I think, generally speaking, she is correct here. That does not, in my mind, change the issue. I have no objection to a vote on the issue in determining how the population defines the state recognition of marriage.

Cool. Let's let the majority vote on your right to equal protection of law. Maybe they'll decide to prevent single women from owning property or running law firms.

[Gingersnap]

Completely misses the point. How does one claim to champion the "sanctity of marriage" and "Christian values" while committing adultery, fornicating, and lying? Gay people don't claim the right to marry on the ground that our marriages will be perfect, but on the ground that we are US citizens entitled to equal protection of the law. People like Hubbard claim the exclusive right to marriage because it's Christian institution and they're the moral and and rightful owners of that institution and we're not.

LOL! You're missing the nuance that is inherent in the secular view of the issue.

As Bok would say, "Damn funny!".

[Celeste Chalfonte]

LOL! You're missing the nuance that is inherent in the secular view of the issue.

As Bok would say, "Damn funny!".

Oh, please explain what nuance you think I've missed. I can't wait to be lectured on law by a chemist.

[scott]

What a bitter and petty miscreant. This is the normalization of gay people - they are just as vile as other liberals.

[phillygirl]

Cool. Let's let the majority vote on your right to equal protection of law. Maybe they'll decide to prevent single women from owning property or running law firms.

I don't necessarily agree it's "equal protection". Is it equal protection for me to marry my first cousin? As long as there are not criminal implications I think there is a difference. However, I do think social mores need to be taken into consideration, and the social mores are definitely swinging in favor of the issue.

[Gingersnap]

Oh, please explain what nuance you think I've missed. I can't wait to be lectured on law by a chemist.

Or ruled by a 'parliament of whores' apparently.

[Billy Jingo]

I don't necessarily agree it's "equal protection". Is it equal protection for me to marry my first cousin? As long as there are not criminal implications I think there is a difference. However, I do think social mores need to be taken into consideration, and the social mores are definitely swinging in favor of the issue.

Ironically, it is in Alabama.