First, I love how the Right has to bring out something 25 YEARS OLD and try to say "see same thing" when it isn't.
Quote:
In 1983, Studds acknowledged his homosexuality after the page revealed he'd had a relationship with Studds a decade earlier, when the page was 17. Studds was censured for sexual misconduct by the House, then went home to his constituents to answer questions in a series of public meetings and interviews with the press.
Studds defended the relationship as a consensual relationship with a young adult. The page later appeared publicly with Studds in support of him.
|
I don't see the "page" (when in actuality it has been more than 1 coming forth, but for arguments sake I'll play along with just the "1 page") say it was consensual in the Foley case. Nor do I see the page supporting Foley. And yes, if the page stated, it was consensual and that he knew what he was doing and the IM's were ok, then I wouldn't have a problem with this. However, the page complained, and nothing was done, supposedly his family requested it be kept quiet.... but it couldn't be, nor should it have been.
At 17, it could have been age of "consent" in both cases, that is why I haven't really gotten into the pedophile aspect. However, when there were complaints lodged, the GOP heirarchy KNEW what was going on and chose to keep it quiet and not do anything, until it became public, then there are problems.
I truly don't see this as the same, but you defenders of Foley and the GOP heirarchy that allowed this, keep thinking it's the same.... maybe someone will believe you.