Steve Ralls

Lawrence & The Madam

Filed By Steve Ralls | August 14, 2007 12:56 PM | comments

Filed in: Politics
Tags: David Vitter, Deborah Jeane Palfrey, lawrence v. texas, prostitution, The Advocate

Summer in DC just isn't complete without a sizzling political sex scandal. This year, it came in the form of Louisiana Senator David Vitter, a Republican lawmaker who apparently had quite the affinity for high-priced call girls. Vitter, it turns out, was a frequent client of Deborah Jeane Palfrey, the so-called "D.C. Madam." And even though there have been calls for Vitter's resignation, Palfrey tells Sue Rochman in the new issue of The Advocate that, in the not-too-distant future, the Senator's behavior may not even be illegal . . . . and it's all thanks to the gays.

Palfrey, who tells Rochman that she "absolutely" has an affinity with gays, is relying on the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas - which struck down state sodomy laws - as a cornerstone of her defense. Alleging that Lawrence considers the private, consensual conduct of two adults to be outside the government's proper business, Palfrey is hoping the ruling will work to her advantage.

In the long-run, Madam Palfrey also thinks Lawrence will mean legalized prostitution.

"I always through prostitution was the next barrier after homosexuality," she says. "I always thought that once gays were accepted that the next barrier would be prostitution. According to my civil attorney, the [Lawrence] case is the foundation upon which prostitution will be legalized in this country. And that is one of our main motions."

(Cheer up, gays! You're ahead of hookers in the fight for civil rights!)

And so yes, Senator Vitter (who Palfrey says she knew only as "David from C Street") may be the spark the Madam needed to get us on the road to legalized gay-for-pay. And won't that be a stellar footnote in his family values resume?!

(Then stay tuned for the other people - "who are the real power movers in D.C." - that Palfrey plans to name soon . . . assuming their actions are still illegal by then.)

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.

Is this hypocrite going to be allowed to stay in office?