The kind of monster our AG would listen to

As noted in the previous post, George “Rentboy” Rekers provided his “expertise” in the Florida case that resulted in the overturning of that state’s odious anti-gay adoption law – the law that was the model for a bill in Virginia that then-State Senator Ken Cuccinelli cast the single committee vote to move forward to become law. Zoe Brain quotes from the court ruling in that case.

And here’s the family he was employed to destroy.

The children arrived…on the evening of December 11, 2004. John, the elder sibling, arrived with his four-month old brother wearing a dirty adult sized t-shirt and sneakers four sizes too small that seemed more like flip-flops than shoes. Both children were suffering from scalp ringworm. Although John was clearly suffering from a severe case of ringworm, the medication brought from John’s home to treat his scalp was unopened and expired. James, too, suffered from an untreated ear infection, as evidenced by the one-month old, nearly unused, medication. John did not speak and had no affect. He had one concern: changing, feeding, and caring for his baby brother. It was clear from the children’s first evening at the Petitioner-Roe home that the baby’s main caretaker was John, his four year old brother…

For the first few months, John seemed depressed and presented a void, unresponsive demeanor and appearance. Upon arriving at the Petitioner home, John did not speak a word for about one week. After two weeks, he began to mumble imperceptible utterances. After about one month, John finally began speaking. Petitioner quickly learned that John had never seen a book, could not distinguish letters from numbers, could not identify colors and could not count. He could not hold a pencil. He had never been in an early childhood program or day care. Nevertheless, John’s potential for educational development was apparent. Although he had not had any formal education, John could sing and pick up lyrics very quickly. Early on, Petitioner and Roe noticed that John hoarded food by requesting additional servings at the start of dinnertime and later hiding the extra food in his room. John eventually grew out of this behavior, due in part to a tactic employed by Petitioner and Roe of showing John, in advance of mealtime, the more than sufficient amount of food on the stove prepared and available for the family.

James was a very happy baby and was content with anyone, even strangers. After approximately two months, James began to exhibit signs of attachment to his primary caregivers, Petitioner and Roe. John, however, took about two years to fully bond. At one time, John shunned hugs from Petitioner and Roe. However, in his own time, John developed bonding and today, initiates goodbye hugs each morning before going to school.

And here’s what their world turned into — the world Rekers wanted to kick them out of:

On weekdays, the household wakes up at about 6:30 a.m. Petitioner usually prepares breakfast, permitting each child to assist with an assigned kitchen duty. Each morning, the family eats together without distraction from the television. As each child finishes his breakfast, he puts his dish in the sink and proceeds to the bathroom to brush his teeth and hair. Petitioner and Roe purchased a Ford minivan, which Petitioner jokes was not his dream car, however, to accommodate the family size, is the most feasible. Tom Roe, Jr. is dropped off at school first. Afterwards, Petitioner takes John and James to school, walking them into their classrooms and usually speaking to their respective teachers. In the afternoon, after Petitioner picks the boys up from school, they generally go to the park for tennis lessons. At the conclusion of their lessons, the family heads home for dinner. At mealtime, the family blesses the food together and takes turns sharing the highlights of their day. Phones are not answered and the television is off during dinner. After the children are excused from the table, the older children load the dishwasher.

After dinner, the children spend one hour doing their homework. Although James does not have homework, he spends time at the table pretending to do homework. John requires more supervision and one-on-one interaction to complete his homework. If a child finishes his homework early, the remaining time is spent reading. After homework is completed, the children are allowed to watch television. At bedtime, the boys retreat to their separate beds. By morning, however, James seems to always find his way into John’s bed.

The family attends a non-denominational Christian church and have as pets, a dog, rabbit and kitten. John and James refer to Petitioner and Roe as “papi” and “daddy” respectively. John and James have lived in the same neighborhood, attended the same school, day care and aftercare since their arrival in the Petitioner-Roe home. As a result, each child has created friendships from school and in the neighborhood. John and James are closely bonded to Tom Roe, Jr., and their extended family. The boys consider Petitioner and Roe’s parents, brothers and sisters their grandparents, uncles and aunts. The extended family sends the boys gifts for their birthdays and the holidays. Roe’s mother, who lives in Tampa, visits the family regularly.

No Good Christian Heterosexual couple volunteered to take these two damaged youngsters in.

None have done so since.

If separated from their parents, they will be sent to separate state institutions.

Dr Rekers testified under oath that even if they’d have been with their new parents for ten years, it would still be in the children’s best interests to split them up and institutionalise them.

Rekers is also behind – lo and behold – that activist front group calling itself the “American College of Pediatricians” that recently sent to every school district in the country a campaign of misinformation called “Facts about Youth.” They were banking on distracted educators confusing them with the legitimate American Academy of Pediatrics, and the program entitled “Just the Facts about Sexual Orientation and Youth: A Primer for Principals, Educators, and School Personnel.” The AAP published a statement on their website that politely sets the record straight: “[The fake group’s] campaign does not acknowledge the scientific and medical evidence regarding sexual orientation, sexual identity, sexual health, or effective health education.”

Zoe also gives us the information that Rekers, along with director Jay Grimstead, Patrick Henry College/Home School Legal Defense Association’s Mike Farris (this article is from 1993, when Farris was running for Virginia Lt. Governor), and other activists, was one of the authors and steering members of the Coalition on Revival. Here is an excerpt from one of the policy papers, co-authored by Rekers, that make up the COR Manifesto, a kind of blueprint for a pre-constitutional theocratic America:

42. We affirm that sexual abuse and parents’ willfully depriving their children of shelter, clothing, food, sleep, or essential medical care, thus endangering their lives and physical health, should be treated as unlawful assault or attempted murder and the offenders punished accordingly by civil government and disciplined by the Church. We deny that the state has a right to impose unrealistic standards on families; that the so-called offenses of “emotional neglect,” “emotional abuse,” “educational neglect,” etc., which form the bulk of substantiated reports of “child abuse and neglect,” are in fact crimes against children; that the state has any right to administer criminal penalties or usurp custody in neglect cases except when a child’s life or physical health is obviously endangered; and that the state should ever administer criminal penalties or usurp custody in cases where the only accusation concerns mental health, since the state should not mandate what particular beliefs and attitudes are healthy or acceptable. We further deny that involuntary circumstances should ever be treated as a crime, and that even sinful families are helped more by the threat of removing their children rather than by prayer, godly instruction, and loving assistance.

Sure – because parents and their assistants should be free to torture children emotionally with no pesky interference. Who’s to say that a child’s belief that s/he’s an abomination and would be better off dead isn’t “healthy”? It’s for their own good; the “doctor” said so. You should really just go read Zoe’s entire post.

This entry was posted in Commentary, News and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to The kind of monster our AG would listen to

  1. Terry Wolfe says:

    In 1995, I was expelled from the George Mason University School of Law, a Virginia state institution in Arlington, VA, six weeks prior to my expected graduation, after a kangaroo-court “honor code” proceeding was waged against me for the express purpose of wresting control away from me of an independent student-edited law journal, a publication of which I was the only remaining editor. (I also was a Moot Court board member, an officer of the Inn of Court, a “Dean’s Scholar,” or teaching assistant in the legal writing program, and the winner of my class’s moot court competition, judged by John Roberts, now Chief Justice of the United States.)

    The honor code proceeding was a breach of my academic contract with the law school, as the school’s own policies restricted honor code proceedings to instances of academic misconduct such as plagiarism or cheating on exams. Nothing in the honor code permitted it to be used to resolve disputes over control of student organizations. Indeed, an attempt already had been made to use the University’s judicial complaint procedure against me for the same desired end, and the complaint had been dismissed. Still, the law school allowed the matter to proceed, without my participation, out of various petty grievances against me on the part of its then-Deans, Henry Manne (later forced into retirement at the faculty’s behest) and Winston “Sid” Moore.

    The student in charge of the honor code system at GMUSL at that time treated its various procedural safeguards as entirely optional, ignoring any with which he disagreed that obstructed his pursuit of an outcome adverse to me. (He even, as Honor Code Chairman, went into the jury room during deliberations in order to coach the “jury” toward a vote of expulsion.) This didn’t surprise me, as this student had various axes to grind where I was concerned, including resentment of my running against him for the Honor Code Chairman post, and my public opposition to his later frantic and clandestine efforts, ultimately successful, to tamper with the honor code rules to make it far easier to expel students.

    I believe this student, widely known to be anti-gay, also harbored personal bias towards me, as one of the founders of the gay students association at the law school.

    That student was Ken Cuccinelli, now attorney general of Virginia. Cuccinelli’s actions, encouraged and supported fully by George Mason University’s School of Law’s Manne and Moore, were intended to destroy my career and life, and have pretty much done so.

    Cuccinelli is a danger to anyone in Virginia. I got to see it long before most people did.

    Terry Wolfe

    Terence Wolfe
    Brandon, Florida

  2. David says:

    “Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.” -Blaise Pascal

    Men like Ken Cuccinelli and George Rekers seem to believe themselves above every law and moral standard of behavior that applies to others. Religious conviction gives them “special rights,” what would easily be seen as a personality disorder if it didn’t have some utility to a political agenda.

    I’m very sorry about what happened to you, and thank you for sharing your story.

  3. Pingback: David Blankenhorn’s anguish |

  4. Pingback: Faith in Public Life – LCRC style |