Ethical and Moral Consistency: 2.0

One wonders the extent of the reaction from the Christian fundamentalist community if a person was to drive around town in a panel truck festooned with huge reproductions of Mapplethorpe's Piss Christ. No doubt there would be fiery attacks on anyone who so dared. After all how could someone be so vile as to drive around town where any child might see the image. How would a parent feel safe taking their kids out for a drive when at any moment such 'pornography' might pull along side. And what right would such an art installation have to prevent other decent parents from deciding what imagery and ideas to which their child is exposed and when.

Yet many of the same people who would object to the above seem to have no trouble doing a couple of things which I find just as objectionable and which tread upon my abilities to protect my kids from imagery which is inappropriate for their age. Oregon has about the most open-ended First Amendment rights of any state in the union. Essentially everything is considered protected free speech. And in this town there is a group of fundamentalists who drive around in a panel truck covered with images of aborted fetuses. Others love to set up shop in front of one of the planned parenthood offices with similar signs that they wave to passing cars. They cloak themselves in the protective aegis of scripture and sanctimony and smile dismissively at anyone who is offended by their actions. [The only weapon that I have seen which fractures their carefully manicured exterior tranquility is that each time I encounter them, I stop my car, write out a new donation check to Planned Parenthood, deposit it in the office and thank then for reminding me to support this important organization.] As a parent I want to decide if and when my kids are exposed to disturbing imagery the nature of which would get a movie an R rating.

In Texas the school board narrowly defeated another one of those creationist attempts to insert disinformation into science texts in order to discuss the so-called problems with evolution. Sorry but the rest of us know what the problem is with evolution - if your kids learn about it they might just start questioning all the other ideas that you've carefully brainwashed into them. But the fundamentalists want to have a say in controlling what their kids see and hear.

Which brings me back to that notion of ethical and moral consistency that I mentioned a while back. It is hypocrisy to rail about images of breasts in the media, evolutionary texts, and avant garde artwork's influence on your kid's impressionable mind when you turn around and do the Lord's work by pushing objectionable imagery on my kids. Hypocrisy robs you of any claim to the high ground. Hypocrisy in the service of religion can easily turn to evil. If you want to debate the merits of these issues as adults, fine by me. Just leave the kids out of it. When you threaten to expose my kids to things that are age inappropriate I'm not going to hear what you have to say. You're not a crusader - you're just a pornographer.

Dammit Sam!

Ok, we can debate for years why people have a far easier time getting their bile up over politician's sexual exploits rather than far more substantive reasons such as lying about WMD's. Part of it is that we all have experience with it to some degree and have a sense for what is right and what is wrong when it comes to love and sex. Part of it is probably Dr Goebbels's big lie vs the small ones. The big ones are harder to fathom. The little ones not so much.

Which brings us to the sad case of Sam Adams. Sam is the first openly gay man elected mayor of a large American city - Portland Oregon. Now Oregon in general and Portland in particular are well known as libertarian bastions. I am a stereotypical Oregonian. What ever you choose to do is of absolutely no consequence to me as long as I am not directly involved or the innocent are threatened. Like Tommy Lee Jones in the Fugitive - "I don't care!". My friends who happen to be gay know that I don't want to hear about their sex lives. That's simply because I don't want to hear about anyone's sex life other than my own. It's none of my business as long as it's legal. In November I joined a whole lot of other people in electing Sam mayor for the simple reason that he seemed qualified for the job.

Now Sam got caught lying just a few short weeks after the election. A while back rumors circulated that he had an affair with an intern in his department who started working at age 17 (hence the part about legal). The young man turned 18 and the rumors got a little more explicit. When confronted by these questions Adams repeatedly denied the allegations that he had ever had sex with this young man. Furthermore he took a sanctimonious approach to the denials calling it the worst kind of stereotypical smear campaign against a gay man. Now it turns out that he lied repeatedly.

On the eve of the inaugural a notorious independent rag called the Willamette Week was about to break the story. People rail against this paper all the time but everybody reads it - for the simple reason that even a blind hog can find an acorn once in a great while. And the WW sometimes comes through when the rest of the media falls flat. So Adams came clean on the eve of publication. He admitted to lying. He admitted to getting the young man to lie as well. He covered up the truth. And he admitted that he lied because he didn't think he'd get elected if he had been truthful. Maybe so, maybe not, this was Portland after all. Then he poured gasoline on the fire by not showing up to work yesterday. Sam you are the mayor of a big city - deal with your personal crises on your own time. (A bit of irony - He had to cancel a talk at the local university last night - the topic was on ethics in public life.... The Q+A session would have no doubt been very interesting.)

It's hard to know but there is little doubt that his actions have in fact fed into the stereotypical prejudices against gay men that he piously decried as unfair in the minds of some. But Sam that's not why people like me are pissed. We're mad because you lied about it. Hey, we're adults - we know that affairs of the heart can be tricky and personal decisions don't necessarily impact one's ability to govern, but bold faced lying does. His actions at the very least showed questionable judgment (yes, like Clinton's as well). A person in power is treading on dangerous ground when they engage in any relationship with someone who works for them particularly when there is such an age difference. Then, there is the issue at what age did this relationship become physical. Sorry Sam but your denials ring a bit false based upon your level of credibility with the voters. And like it or not 17 and 18 mark a black and white line with respect to the law and one side or the other is the difference between piss poor judgment and a label of sexual offender. Even Portland ain't that progressive.

Now delving into all that wouldn't have been comfortable and dealing with his age might have been tough. You might respond that your private life is none of our business but here's a fact that many politicians seem incapable of understanding - the voters get to decide what is their business and what isn't if you want our vote. We'll never know if we'd have gotten past it or not since you didn't trust us to decide. Yes it might have cost you the election, but I suspect that would have been better than what's happening now. You'll either resign or likely be recalled for lying. Oregon has a long tradition of recalling politicians who fall from grace. Sex and sexual politics is the one thing that everybody understands. You've created questions in the minds of all those women out there who's bosses come on to them because they can. In all those troglodytes who imagine gay men hiding in the shadows waiting to pounce on young boys. And all those people who know that the city faces a myriad of problems that need honest government to address. You've touched off battles between those who would defend you for your orientation and those who do not. None of that is really relevant - it's just about one guy who screwed up and then lied about it.

But Dammit Sam, you didn't have the luxury of human foibles. Like it or not, your actions reflect on a greater population of people than yourself. And you've just made it harder for them. I'm not talking about sexual orientation here. All the people of this city deserved better.

Ethics Quiz Answer

Those who responded did so with ruthless creativity but according to experts in the field, there really is only one truly definitive answer to the lifeboat dilemma as described.