A Tale of Two Predators: Liberals Decry Foley Scandal But Lionize Pervert Gerry Studds in Death

Censured Democrat Congressman would get boys drunk, take them to his apartment, then make his move

“In his deposition, the male page who had allegedly traveled to Europe with Representative Studds, testified that…they engaged in sexual activity every two or three days during this trip.”

Q. After you met Congressman Studds, did you and he get together again after that?
A. Yes. Shortly thereafter … I was invited to go out to dinner with him and I did. The dinner took place at his apartment in Georgetown…..
Q. …[W]hat happened at that dinner?
A. Well, we sat around and talked about abstract and general questions, all types and descriptions, until four in the morning, drinking vodka and cranberry juice, at which time I was told by the Congressman that he was too drunk to give me a ride home and so he said, ‘Why don’t you sleep here?’ and I did.

AN Americans For Truth SPECIAL REPORT
By Peter LaBarbera

The death Saturday of former Massachusetts Rep. Gerry Studds (D) is an untimely one for Democrats hoping to use the Mark Foley scandal to dethrone Republicans in the House of Representatives. While the prospects of political rehabilitation are bleak for Foley, Studds was re-elected six times after it was revealed that he had sex with a 16- to 17-year-old page—and tried to seduce two other minor boys—as a Congressman in 1973 (Studds was 36 at the time).

News stories on Studds’ death at age 69 report on his censure by Congress in 1983 for having a “consensual” sexual “relationship” with the underage boy, but this begs the question: is it a “consensual relationship” when the adult predator plies his underage targets with alcohol or abuses his authority by taking one on a trip to Europe—both of which Studds did?

The sad truth is that Studds, although brilliant and talented in other areas of his life, was a pervert who never apologized for his predations on innocent and impressionable boys. In fact, once discovered, Studds manipulated the scandal as way to gain sympathy as a supposedly aggrieved “gay” man. In other words, in his own mind Studds was the victim, not the corrupted boys.

Of course, the media are mostly buying it. Press stories have highlighted the alleged injustice of Studds’ male “husband” not receiving pension benefits because the federal government does not recognize their Massachusetts “marriage.” (The federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines spouse and marriage in federal law as between a man and a woman, may have saved the taxpayers more than $114,000 in this case; Studds’ estimated annual congressional pension is reportedly $114,337.)

CONTINUE READING THIS AFT SPECIAL REPORT

Congressional Honors, “Gay” Hero?
Due to his predatory behavior toward male pages, Republican Mark Foley’s reputation is shot, and deservedly so. But most stories on the death of Democrat Studds have lionized him as a “gay rights” pioneer and able defender of the public interest. A “gay” center in Boston has created an award named after Studds, and even the GOP-led Congress in 1996 named a marine sanctuary after him: the Gerry E. Studds Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary, near Cape Cod. This is troubling: how can our leaders say they respect children when they bestow honors on a sexual predator who disgraced Congress by using his wit and smarts to lure boys back to his apartment for sex?

Homosexual activists are evidently not troubled by Studds’ history with boys (shocking news, I know). Barney Frank had this to say about Studds:

“It was very important to see, for young people in particular, somebody as capable and talented as he [being] openly gay.”

Ah yes, Congressman Studds had a very special concern (or should I say taste?) for “young people.” It appears his modus operandi for seducing “young” teenage boys was to get them drunk and then back to his apartment, where he would make his sexual advances (see pages’ testimony below).

Studds goes down in history as the first “openly gay” man to be elected to Congress, but his homosexuality became “open” only after it was revealed that he seduced a teenage male page in a sordid scandal. Come to think of if, revealing one’s homosexuality following a sex scandal seems to be the quickest way towards regaining respectability, at least with liberals. Just ask former New Jersey governor Jim McGreevey.

Later, the defiant Studds infamously turned his back on fellow House Members as they voted to censure him (see below).

Official Excerpts from House Investigation
The following are verbatim excerpts taken from the House Ethics Committee investigatory report on Studds’ luring and attempted luring of three teenage male congressional pages for sex in 1973 (emphasis added). The House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct issued its report July 14, 1983. Read these experts and then decide if I went too far in calling Gerry Studds a pervert:

• “In his deposition, the male page who had allegedly traveled to Europe with Representative Studds, testified that he had visited [Rep.] Studds’ apartment at the Congressman’s invitation on at least three or four occasions in 1973 and that [Rep.] Studds and page had engaged in sexual activity on each of those occasions. The page testified that in late July, 1973, [Rep.] Studds invited him to travel abroad during the August recess. The page agreed, and the two took a two and a half week trip together abroad. According to the page’s testimony, they engaged in sexual activity every two or three days during this trip.”

• “The page was 17 years old during the time he testified that he had a sexual relationship with [Rep.] Studds; the relationship may have begun when the page was 16, since the page was born in the spring of 1956. At that time, Studds was 36 years old.”

• “The other former pages, both male, have stated under oath that [Rep.] Studds made sexual advances to them in 1973 while they were serving as House pages. One was 16 or 17 years old at the time of the alleged incident; the other was 17.”

• “The page [who ended up being seduced by Rep. Studds] testified that another page introduced him to [Rep.] Studds and a group of other congressmen at a restaurant in May or June, 1973…sometime after this introduction, [Rep.] Studds invited the page to the Representative’s house in Georgetown for dinner:

Q. After you met Congressman Studds, did you and he get together again after that?
A. Yes. Shortly thereafter … I was invited to go out to dinner with him and I did. The dinner took place at his apartment in Georgetown…..
Q. …[W]hat happened at that dinner?
A. Well, we sat around and talked about abstract and general questions, all types and descriptions, until four in the morning, drinking vodka and cranberry juice, at which time I was told by the Congressman that he was too drunk to give me a ride home and so he said, ‘Why don’t you sleep here?’ and I did.

• “At that point, according to the page’s testimony, [Studds] engaged the page in sexual activity.”

• “The page testified that the sexual relationship continued after that first night:

Q. Did you and the Congressman get together subsequent to this?
A. Yes. I would imagine we had dinner three or four additional times…
Q. And did you engage in sexual activity each time?
A. Yes.

Americans For Truth comment: Note the evident manipulation and confusion underlying the following testimony by the boy, who denies he was victimized by Studds even as he says the Congressman’s sexual advances were unwanted:

Q. When the Congressman first invited you to have dinner and as you got to know the Congressman, how did you feel in that environment, that a Congressman was talking with you?
A. I was flattered and excited.
Q. Did you feel intimidated?
A. No, I did not. I would like to state a this time—it would probably have been better if I had stated this in my opening statement—but the Congressman or the Honorable Gerry Studds was an intelligent, witty, gentle man with I think a high level of insecurity. He did nothing to me which I would consider destructive or painful. In another time, in another society, the action would be acceptable, perhaps even laudable. Unfortunately this is not the case. I have no axe to grind with him. I have nothing to say about the man. In fact, I thought that he provided me with one of the more wonderful experiences of my life, if we exclude the instances of sexual experience which I was somewhat uncomfortable with. But I did not think it was that big a deal…
Q. You said you felt uncomfortable with it, did you continue with him because he was a Congressman, because he was someone you were impressed with?
A. No. Well, I kept company with him because he was an intelligent man, a fun person to be with. If I could have had my druthers, I would have had the friendship that I had with the man without the sex. And I mentioned that to him.”

• “According to the page’s testimony, his sexual relationship with [Rep.] Studds continued during their trip [to Europe] together in August 1973….[T]he relationship with Mr. Studds ended when they returned to the United States….The page testified that he is not homosexual and he had not had a homosexual relationship prior to his relationship with [Rep.] Studds.

Studds Makes Sexual Advances on Two Other Male Pages

• “The Special Counsel received testimony under oath from two other former pages that [Rep.] Studds made sexual advances to them in 1973. Each testified that he rejected the advance.”

• “First page: This individual was a page in the House from mid-1972 through mid-1974. He became seventeen years old in the spring of 1973. He testified under oath at this deposition that he me [Rep.] Studds one evening in 1973 at a restaurant or bar on Capitol Hill, while with a group of other pages. According to the page’s sworn testimony, as the group of pages broke up later in the evening, [Rep.] Studds offered to drive him home. The page accepted the offer. But instead of driving to the page’s home, [Rep.] Studds drove to his own home where he and the page continued to drink and talk for from one-and-a-half to three hours. According to the page’s sworn testimony, [Rep.] Studds then made a remark which the page interpreted as a sexual proposition. At the time the incident occurred, the page told at least tow other individuals about it, one of whom was a staff member in the Doorkeeper’s office.”

• “Second page: this page was also a congressional page in the House from mid-1971 through mid-1973. He was seventeen years old in the Spring of 1973. In a sworn statement, this individual stated that, one evening after a late House session in the Spring of 1973, he went to a bar on Capitol Hill. He joined a group of individuals that included [Rep.] Studds and a number of pages, House staffers and Members of Congress. According to the page’s sworn statement, he and [Rep.] Studds, along with the others present, consumed a large quantity of alcohol in the course of the evening. The page stated under oath that at the end of the evening, [Rep.] Studds invited this page to [Rep.] Studds’ house for another drink. At the house, the page stated that [Rep.] Studds poured alcoholic drinks for himself and the page, and made a sexual proposition to the page, which the page declined.”

• “In their appearance before the Committee, [Rep.] Studds and his attorneys argued that the sexual relationship of [Rep.] Studds with a teenage page (presumably, their argument also would apply to the sexual advances to the other pages in 1973) failed to meet the definition of improper sexual conduct adopted by the Special Counsel … because of ‘the absence of actual preferential treatment and coercion and because of staleness.’”

• “[Rep.] Studds attorneys alternatively argue that the conduct be reported and condemned without naming Representative Studds….”

Statement by Studds Refuses to Acknowledge Guilt
In a statement made July 15, 1983 in reaction to the report cited above by the House Committee on Standards and Official Conduct, a defiant Rep. Studds acknowledged only that his sexual relationship with the teenage male page “reflected a very serious error of judgment on my part.” However, Studds continued to defend his actions, asserted that his and the teenage boy’s was an “adult” relationship, and denied that he had engaged in sexual misconduct, saying:

“I do not believe … that a relationship which was mutual and voluntary; without coercion; without any preferential treatment, express or implied; without harassment of any kind; which was private, and which occurred 10 years ago constitutes ‘improper sexual conduct’ within the meaning of House Resolution 58, and as defined by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct itself in its report of last December….

“I repeat that in my judgment, the mutually voluntary private relationship between adults which occurred 10 years ago, should not—by any conceivable standard of fairness, rationality, rule or law – warrant the attention or action of the House of Representatives of the United States.”

Studds Turns Back on House during Censure
On July 20, 1983, in a 420-3 roll call vote, the House of Representatives voted to censure both Rep. Gerry Studds and Rep. Daniel Crane, an Illinois Republican who admitted to having sexual relations with a female page. (Unlike Studds, Rep. Crane tearfully and profusely apologized for his seduction; he was defeated in a bid for re-election in 1984, while Studds won that and five subsequent elections.) As the Boston Globe reported at the time, Studds again showed his defiance by turning his back on his House colleagues as the censure motion against him was read aloud.

Prior to the censure vote, Studds used the occasion of his the House ethics committee recommendation that he be reprimanded (which was later upgraded to a full censure by the House) to declare his homosexuality, casting himself as a victim of sorts:

“It is not a simple task for any of us to meet adequately the obligations of either public or private life, let alone both. But these challenges are made substantially more complex when one is, as am I, both an elected official and gay.”

The next day, homosexual activists in Massachusetts hailed Studds’ announcement as a “milestone” for the homosexual liberation movement—he was now the first openly homosexual Congressman—and voiced anger with the House ethics committee investigation for violating Studds’ privacy.

“Beyond our anger over how an individual’s private life can be invaded, there’s a positive side for Gerry’s life,” one “gay” activist, Brian McNaught, told the Boston Globe. “For the first time in 10 years he can be himself in the House. He will not have to worry about attending gay political or social events, or even going to a gay bar.”

Additional Words of Praise for Censured Pederast Gerry Studds
As noted in Reaction to Death of Former Rep. Studds, published Oct 14, 2006, by Associated Press:

“Gerry’s leadership changed Massachusetts forever and we’ll never forget him. His work on behalf of our fishing industry and the protection of our waters has guided the fishing industry into the future and ensured that generations to come will have the opportunity to love and learn from the sea. He was a steward of the oceans.” — U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass

“No one fought harder for human rights, particularly in Latin America; for our environment; and for the fishermen of New England and the entire nation. He was a true pioneer.” — U.S. Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., whose wife, Lisa, once worked as an aide to Studds

“Gerry was a stalwart champion of New England’s fishing families as well as a committed environmentalist who worked hard to demonstrate that the cause of working people and the cause of the environment go hand in hand with the right leadership. When he retired from Congress, he did not retire from the cause, continuing to fight for the fishing industry and New England’s environmental causes.” — U.S. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass

“I am very saddened by the death of Gerry Studds. From his days in the early 1970s as an articulate and effective opponent of the Vietnam war, through his consistent leadership on environmental issues, to his insistence that the U.S. government stop ignoring the AIDS crisis, Gerry was a forceful advocate for causes that were not always popular and that were consequently shunned by many politicians.” — U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass

“Gerry often said that it was the fight for gay and lesbian equality that was the last great civil rights chapter in modern American history. He did not live to see its final sentences written, but all of us will forever be indebted to him for leading the way with compassion and wisdom. He gave people of his generation, of my generation, and of future generations the courage to be who they are.” — Dean Hara, who “married” Studds in 2004 – and who also said that Studds was never ashamed of the relationship with the page: “This young man knew what he was doing,” Hara said. “He was at (Studds’) side.”