Philosophy Now Forum

The St. Louis County attorney's office said it will not pursue charges against state Rep. Kerry Gauthier for an alleged sexual encounter with a 17-year-old male at a rest stop.

Authorities found that the Duluth DFLer engaged in oral sex with the 17-year-old in a wooded area behind the rest stop on July 22. County Attorney Mark Rubin determined that no charges were warranted because the legal age of consent is 16.

Gauthier, 56, told police he met the boy after placing an ad on Craiglist in which he claimed to be a 43-year-old male looking for sexual relations with another male, "no strings attached."

The 17-year-old told police he responded to the ad and agreed to meet Gauthier at the rest stop around 11 p.m. He told police they walked to a wooded area behind the rest stop and were back there for "five minutes" having oral sex before being spooked by the chance of being spotted.

Authorities walked around the building and found Gauthier in shorts and a short-sleeved shirt with his zipper down. An officer drew his gun when he saw Gauthier's hand in a pocket. Gauthier eventually retrieved a cellphone from the pocket.

Both parties told police that their relationship was consensual and that no money was exchanged. Each also said the teen had told Gauthier he was 18. Gauthier told police it was the first time he'd ever done anything like that and promised it would never happen again.

Gauthier has refused to talk about the investigation, calling it a private matter, and could not be reached for comment Thursday. The Duluth News Tribune, which first reported the story, said Thursday that Gauthier had checked into an area hospital, citing shortness of breath. (Underlining and bold are added)

Before Gauthier's hospitalization was known, the Republican Party of Minnesota demanded that he explain the investigation and why he missed a joint House-Senate meeting Thursday to discuss flood relief in northeastern Minnesota, including Duluth.

Republican Party Chairman Pat Shortridge called the situation "deeply disturbing."

"Today, Gauthier's constituents have legitimate reason to believe that what he terms a 'private matter' is preventing him from doing his job representing them," Shortridge said
http://www.startribune.com/politics/sta ... 87336.html

I have long held that elected public officials have a duty to responsively answer all relevant questions put to them on a material issue. (to submit to a reasonable cross-examination) Further, I have also contended that, when requested by the Fourth Estate, constitutients, or others with standing, the public official has a duty to provide a justification for whatever position, policy, or action is at issue. (I soon will be reading this book which is on my wish list: http://www.amazon.com/The-Right-Justifi ... SH9EM69ZES )

I submit that whether this incident is "a private matter" is contestible. I contend that Rep. Gauthier should submit to questions and be required to explain and justify his participation in the incident.

What I don't understand is why these male homosexual encounters don't take place in a hotel room.

What do you think?

I don't care who was giving him a blow-job but if he was supposed to be present at a meeting then he should be hauled over the coals for missing it.

John wrote:I don't care who was giving him a blow-job but if he was supposed to be present at a meeting then he should be hauled over the coals for missing it.

Judges have an ethical duty to "avoid the appearance of impropriety."

Shouldn't an elected public official be held to a higher standard of conduct than that expected from an ordinary unelected public employee?

tbieter wrote:

John wrote:I don't care who was giving him a blow-job but if he was supposed to be present at a meeting then he should be hauled over the coals for missing it.

Judges have an ethical duty to "avoid the appearance of impropriety."

Shouldn't an elected public official be held to a higher standard of conduct than that expected from an ordinary unelected public employee?

Consider: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indecent_e ... ted_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norm_(sociology)

tbieter wrote:

John wrote:I don't care who was giving him a blow-job but if he was supposed to be present at a meeting then he should be hauled over the coals for missing it.

Judges have an ethical duty to "avoid the appearance of impropriety."

Shouldn't an elected public official be held to a higher standard of conduct than that expected from an ordinary unelected public employee?

Personal wise...no. They are human and it is impossible to be 'non' human. I believe the idea that we should care about personal issues of politicians causes us to get sidetracked by the media. If we only cared about their performance of their duties they were hired for...and not their personal lives, we would be better equipped to make more intelligent and logical judgments of their ability to do the job...instead of our ability to "like" them. I think we get fooled by the aesthetics of our fondness for their personalities instead of how good they are at their job.

Business wise yes...if it interferes with the business of doing their job...then by all means they should be held accountable.

tbieter wrote:
What I don't understand is why these male homosexual encounters don't take place in a hotel room.

What do you think? [/color]

I think you are a moron.

People like to have sexual encounters. If it were not for brain dead intolerant wankers like you and your sick interest in other people's lives, sex would not have to be 'underground'.

The event you describe involve two consensual adults having a bit of fun.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself and your prurient attitude that causes such practices to be vilified.
Maybe that is why they don't happen in a hotel room?

John wrote:I don't care who was giving him a blow-job but if he was supposed to be present at a meeting then he should be hauled over the coals for missing it.

He missed the meeting because he was in hospital for shortness of breath. I don't think hauling him over the coals would help him attend more meetings.
Presumably such meetings are not obligatory - he is a representative, not an employee.

tbieter wrote:

John wrote:I don't care who was giving him a blow-job but if he was supposed to be present at a meeting then he should be hauled over the coals for missing it.

Judges have an ethical duty to "avoid the appearance of impropriety."

Shouldn't an elected public official be held to a higher standard of conduct than that expected from an ordinary unelected public employee?

The same standard should apply to both, whether elected or unelected. The duty should be to avoid actions or situations where doubt could be cast on impartiality or professionalism. Not doing so can leave a person open to ridicule, loss of professional standing, blackmail etc. I agree with John, that the gentleman should be censured because he took a conscious decision to neglect his professional duties to attend to a personal matter.

chaz wyman wrote:

tbieter wrote:
What I don't understand is why these male homosexual encounters don't take place in a hotel room.

What do you think? [/color]

I think you are a moron. Your usual name-calling. I think that you are a sexual pervert.

People like to have sexual encounters. If it were not for brain dead intolerant wankers like you and your sick interest in other people's lives, sex would not have to be 'underground'. But all we normal heterosexuals want is for you to engage in your sexual activities in private places.

The event you describe involve two consensual adults having a bit of fun. In a public place. I wonder how the police happened upon the scene? Either someone called them, or they were just on patroll and saw the gays in action.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself and your prurient attitude that causes such practices to be vilified. So heterosexual criticism of conduct in public is not justified relative to the homosexual?Maybe that is why they don't happen in a hotel room?

Strange logic. And shifting blame to the critic

You fellows certainly don't like to be questioned or criticized. And you object to any limits, formal or informal, being placed on your sexual activities. You implicitly demand the right to engage in sexual conduct in public men's toilets - a frequent and regular occurance - in contrast to the rare incident of heterosexual intercourse in a public place. Why is there this difference in group behaviors? Is your persistent desire to have sex in public rest rooms some evidence of an intrinsic disorder in the homosexual in contrast to the ordinary heterosexual person?

And your explanation is that it is just "a bit of fun."

I think it is reasonable that homosexuals be required to engage in their sexual conduct in private places (your home, or a motel, or other place away from the public) so as not to accidentally offend other persons in public.

What do members of this forum think of my contention?

tbieter wrote:The St. Louis County attorney's office said it will not pursue charges against state Rep. Kerry Gauthier for an alleged sexual encounter with a 17-year-old male at a rest stop.

Authorities found that the Duluth DFLer engaged in oral sex with the 17-year-old in a wooded area behind the rest stop on July 22. County Attorney Mark Rubin determined that no charges were warranted because the legal age of consent is 16.

Gauthier, 56, told police he met the boy after placing an ad on Craiglist in which he claimed to be a 43-year-old male looking for sexual relations with another male, "no strings attached."

The 17-year-old told police he responded to the ad and agreed to meet Gauthier at the rest stop around 11 p.m. He told police they walked to a wooded area behind the rest stop and were back there for "five minutes" having oral sex before being spooked by the chance of being spotted.

Authorities walked around the building and found Gauthier in shorts and a short-sleeved shirt with his zipper down. An officer drew his gun when he saw Gauthier's hand in a pocket. Gauthier eventually retrieved a cellphone from the pocket.

Both parties told police that their relationship was consensual and that no money was exchanged. Each also said the teen had told Gauthier he was 18. Gauthier told police it was the first time he'd ever done anything like that and promised it would never happen again.

Gauthier has refused to talk about the investigation, calling it a private matter, and could not be reached for comment Thursday. The Duluth News Tribune, which first reported the story, said Thursday that Gauthier had checked into an area hospital, citing shortness of breath. (Underlining and bold are added)

Before Gauthier's hospitalization was known, the Republican Party of Minnesota demanded that he explain the investigation and why he missed a joint House-Senate meeting Thursday to discuss flood relief in northeastern Minnesota, including Duluth.

Republican Party Chairman Pat Shortridge called the situation "deeply disturbing."

"Today, Gauthier's constituents have legitimate reason to believe that what he terms a 'private matter' is preventing him from doing his job representing them," Shortridge said
http://www.startribune.com/politics/sta ... 87336.html

I have long held that elected public officials have a duty to responsively answer all relevant questions put to them on a material issue. (to submit to a reasonable cross-examination) Further, I have also contended that, when requested by the Fourth Estate, constitutients, or others with standing, the public official has a duty to provide a justification for whatever position, policy, or action is at issue. (I soon will be reading this book which is on my wish list: http://www.amazon.com/The-Right-Justifi ... SH9EM69ZES )

I submit that whether this incident is "a private matter" is contestible. I contend that Rep. Gauthier should submit to questions and be required to explain and justify his participation in the incident.

What I don't understand is why these male homosexual encounters don't take place in a hotel room.

What do you think?

Yes legislators whose job among other things is to legislate on sexual conduct must in no way have any experience of this sexual conduct themselves. What next pilots having experience flying a plane before trying to land an Airbus, shocking.

tbieter wrote:I think it is reasonable that homosexuals be required to engage in their sexual conduct in private places (your home, or a motel, or other place away from the public) so as not to accidentally offend other persons in public.

What do members of this forum think of my contention?

Unfortunately I think this covers the same concerns as your recent topic, Homosexual Sexual Acts In Public Parks viewtopic.php?f=7&t=9023&p=107103&hilit ... co#p107103.

I would hope that more hetero and homo sexual conduct occurs in private places than public but there will always be individuals willing to take the risk in public, to a greater or lesser degree - for the thrill, so that no motel bill will show up on the credit card bill etc.

I can understand the concerns about public restrooms. In the 1950s and 1960s, my mother would not let her sons go into a public bathroom on their own until they were school age - incase they were 'interfered with'. In later life, she would still take her grandsons into the ladies bathroom with her until they too were of school age, and more wary of 'bad men'.

I wouldn't be too thrilled to take a young child to a public park to find a young guy with an old coot's dong in his mouth. Let's be realistic though- everyone knows that judges are the most debauched people around, second only to religious leaders, with politicians a close third.

"The two met at the Thompson Hill Travel Information Center, on the north side of Interstate 35 overlooking Duluth and Lake Superior. [ http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM93 ... _Duluth_MN ]

They engaged in oral sex behind the rest stop pavilion, the report said.

Another person at the rest stop called the Minnesota State Patrol to report suspicious activity, the newspaper said. The patrol and local police ended up investigating."
http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_ ... m-hospital

tbieter wrote:"The two met at the Thompson Hill Travel Information Center, on the north side of Interstate 35 overlooking Duluth and Lake Superior. [ http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM93 ... _Duluth_MN ]

They engaged in oral sex behind the rest stop pavilion, the report said.

Another person at the rest stop called the Minnesota State Patrol to report suspicious activity, the newspaper said. The patrol and local police ended up investigating."
http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_ ... m-hospital

"That age deception provides Gauthier little exoneration in the court of public opinion. Solicitation for sex in a public place with a stranger, male or female, nearly 40 years one’s junior is conduct unbecoming an elected official."
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/edit ... ml?refer=y

lol