Nadine Smith

Demand an Apology from Bill McCollum- No More Bigots for Hire!

Filed By Nadine Smith | May 08, 2010 4:00 PM | comments

Filed in: Action Alerts
Tags: adoption, bill mccollum, equality florida, gay, george rekers, lgbt

George Rekers, the "expert" witness picked by Attorney General Bill McCollum to defend Florida's anti-gay adoption ban has been caught with a male prostitute at the Miami airport, according to the Miami New Times.

Rekers and a cohort were hired as "expert" witnesses and paid an astonishing $87,000 to defend Florida's anti-gay adoption ban on McCollum's behalf.

The lion share, $60,000, went to Rekers. He and his colleague, Walter Schumm, were the only two witnesses McCollum called in his effort to reverse a Miami judge who ruled that Florida's adoption ban to be unconstitutional.

Why would Bill McCollum force the cash-strapped state to shell out $87,000 - that's 2.5 years worth of salary to the average American - for discredited witness testimony?

action.jpg

Click here to send a letter to Attorney General Bill McCollum and demand and apology!

TBP Ad

Rekers' testimony in a prior case was found completely worthless by the Arkansas Supreme Court! According to the Arkansas Leader:

"The Arkansas judge, Timothy Fox, said Rekers' testimony was worthless as evidence because it was only his personal view. The Arkansas Supreme Court concluded later that Rekers' testimony was pointless and it declared Huckabee's anti-gay rule unconstitutional. Rekers testifies as a scientific expert for states that adopt anti-gay laws. The states lose, but Rekers always takes in big fees."

Bill McCollum's star witness provided only unscientific, bigoted testimony.

During the Florida adoption case, Rekers stated that Native Americans should also not be adoptive parents because of rampant alcoholism. Rekers also concluded that a child living with his same sex parents for even a period of over ten years should be removed and that the child will adjust in only a year of being with a opposite sex family. The courtroom was stunned at the depth of Rekers' bigotry.

This latest controversy makes it clear that Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum must publicly apologize for wasting tax-payers' money on the outrageously biased and unscientific testimony. No court should ever again consider George Rekers an "expert" on anything, especially the lives gay people.

Rekers, a national "ex-gay" leader, was a fraud long before he was caught in Miami. It is disgraceful that the attorney general used taxpayer dollars to compensate this discredited bigot-for-hire.

It shows just how low they have to scrape to find anyone even willing to defend Florida's harmful ban that denies children permanent loving homes.

Share |

Recent Entries Filed under Action Alerts:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


Deena | May 8, 2010 9:01 PM

I'll express my disgust in November by voting for Alex Sink for governor. She supports eliminating the ban on gay parents adopting and other issues important to fair minded people in this state. McCollum is a lost cause IMHO. I get the distinct feeling that Bill would like separate drinking fountains for various races if he could roll back time.

Facebook Comments Only
Bil Browning Bil Browning | May 9, 2010 11:01 AM

I just read that another state dismissed his testimony during another trail for being a "biased witness with no credibility." I'll try to find out which state it was. I think Arizona, but couldn't swear to it.

Facebook Comments Only
Hunter | May 9, 2010 4:43 PM

Actually, I believe it was the court in the Florida case. Here's the decision: http://www.aclu.org/images/asset_upload_file16_37906.pdf

The fun part starts on page 21:

"Dr. Rekers astounded the Court when he testified that he favors removal of any child from a
homosexual household, even after placement in that household for ten years, in favor of a
heterosexual household. To this Court’s further astonishment, the witness hypothesized that
such a child would recover from the removal from his family of 10 years after one year in a
heterosexual household. The Court finds this testimony to be contrary to science and decades of
research in child development."

The death blow is on page 23:

"Dr. Rekers’ testimony was far from a neutral and unbiased recitation of the relevant scientific evidence. Dr. Rekers’ beliefs are motivated by his strong ideological and theological convictions that are not consistent with the science. Based on his testimony and demeanor at
trial, the court can not consider his testimony to be credible nor worthy of forming the basis of
public policy."

Remember, this is from the court's decision.

And it seems the $60k was a retainer; he was ultimately paid $120,000 to appear as an "expert" witness with no credibility.

Judges don't normally say things like that.

Facebook Comments Only
Zoe Brain Zoe Brain | May 9, 2010 8:31 PM

No they don't. Here's what was said in Hunter Vs Arkansas - http://www.aclu.org/files/FilesPDFs/howard2.pdf

In counterpoint to the quality of Dr Lamb's testimony was the testimony provided by Dr George Rekers. It was apparent from Dr Rekers testimony and attitude on the stand that he was there primarily to promote his own personal ideology. If the furtherance of such ideology meant providing the court with only partial information or selectively analyzing study results that was acceptable to Dr Rekers. Dr Rekers was unable to testify without referring to approximately seventy pages of notes. A large part of his testimony was not responsive to the questions being asked him but consisted of Dr Rekers simply reading his prepared notes on a topic he wished to promote. For the most part, whether on direct examination or cross examination, he was unable or unwilling to directly answer a question.... Dr Rekers willingness to prioritize his personal beliefs over his function as an expert provider of fact renders his testimony extremely suspect and of little, if any, assistance to the court in resolving the difficult issues presented by this case. Dr Rekers personal agenda caused him to have inconsistent testimony on several issues. One example being that after testifying at length about how transitions were stressful for foster children and should be avoided if possible, Dr Rekers then testified that it was hypothetically in the child's best interests to be removed from a successful fourteen-year foster relationship in a homosexual household for the sole purpose of placement in a heterosexual household. When informed of Dr Rekers statement on such point, Dr Lamb testified that such statement was an "extraordinary suggestion" that "flies in the face of all that we know about the importance of relationships between children and parent figures". Such portion of Dr Rekers testimony is also directly contrary to the legislative intent of the Arkansas General Assembly... which states that "The policy of the state of Arkansas is that children in the custody of the Department of Human Services should have stable placements."
Facebook Comments Only
Zoe Brain Zoe Brain | May 9, 2010 8:25 PM

It's worse than you think. I did a little research.

The Christian World View of the Family
Edited by Dr. George Rekers, Ph.D., Chairman; Jerry Regier, M.A.B.S., Co-Chairman; With contributions by members of the Family Committee of The Coalition on Revival; Dr. Jay Grimstead, General Editor; E. Calvin Beisner, M.A., Assistant to the General Editor

9. We affirm that a man's authority as head of his wife is delegated to him by God; that this means that his legitimate authority over his wife is limited by what God's Word allows him; and that all authority is established by God and no one and no social institution has the right to exert any authority contrary to God's laws or the bounds God has set for the man's office in the family (Romans 13:1; Ephesians 5:22-23)....

....

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.

...

45. We affirm that Biblical spanking may cause temporary and superficial bruises or welts that do not constitute child abuse, but that proven brutality to a child resulting in permanent disfigurement or serious injury should be punished by law (Exodus 21:23,24; Proverbs 13:24; 22:15; 23:13,14).....

Temporary disfigurement is A-OK though. Just don't break bones. Major ones, anyway. And any amount of psychological torture, such as that administered by Dr Rekers to Trans kids at UCLA is fine.

Now here's what the judge said in Arkansas.

In counterpoint to the quality of Dr Lamb's testimony was the testimony provided by Dr George Rekers. It was apparent from Dr Rekers testimony and attitude on the stand that he was there primarily to promote his own personal ideology. If the furtherance of such ideology meant providing the court with only partial information or selectively analyzing study results that was acceptable to Dr Rekers. Dr Rekers was unable to testify without referring to approximately seventy pages of notes. A large part of his testimony was not responsive to the questions being asked him but consisted of Dr Rekers simply reading his prepared notes on a topic he wished to promote. For the most part, whether on direct examination or cross examination, he was unable or unwilling to directly answer a question.... Dr Rekers willingness to prioritize his personal beliefs over his function as an expert provider of fact renders his testimony extremely suspect and of little, if any, assistance to the court in resolving the difficult issues presented by this case. Dr Rekers personal agenda caused him to have inconsistent testimony on several issues. One example being that after testifying at length about how transitions were stressful for foster children and should be avoided if possible, Dr Rekers then testified that it was hypothetically in the child's best interests to be removed from a successful fourteen-year foster relationship in a homosexual household for the sole purpose of placement in a heterosexual household. When informed of Dr Rekers statement on such point, Dr Lamb testified that such statement was an "extraordinary suggestion" that "flies in the face of all that we know about the importance of relationships between children and parent figures". Such portion of Dr Rekers testimony is also directly contrary to the legislative intent of the Arkansas General Assembly... which states that "The policy of the state of Arkansas is that children in the custody of the Department of Human Services should have stable placements."
This guy ignores facts that contradict his religious beliefs. He tortures children, and sees nothing wrong with that as long as there's no permanent maiming or serious injury.

In the trial where he testified, the law in Arkansas defines gays (in one context) as follows:

Homosexual, for the purposes of this rule, shall mean any person who voluntarily and knowingly engages in or submits to any sexual contact involving the genitals of one person and the mouth or anus of another person of the same gender...
George Alan Rickers merely had his genitals and anal area manually fondled every day for at least an hour by a firm-bodied, young, nude rentboy. There was no oral contact, so according to a law Dr Rekers must be intimately familiar with, he's not Gay at all. Just a fine upstanding (VERY upstanding according to his masseur) Christian Gentleman, who's very, very straight indeed. Yes siree. Completely straight.

Because if he wasn't, he'd be one of those awful Gays. And that is unthinkable to him.

Rekers described himself to his "travel companion" and intimate masseur as a "Child Psychologist". And indeed, he appears to have practiced as one, applying the principles that he's consistently believed in. Psychologically and physically torturing kids into compliance. God knows how much damage he's done to these children.

He's far worse than anyone realised. When the media start talking to some of his patients - those who haven't suicided - the fertiliser os going to hit the air conditioning.

More on case studies of former patients at http://aebrain.blogspot.com/2010/05/my-final-word-on-george-alan-rekers.html
There's even more on the net. We just didn't put the pieces together before.

Facebook Comments Only