



Rev. Daniels in in jail and charged with lewd and lascivious acts with a child under the age of 14 as well three or more acts of sexual conduct with a child. But, the good news, Rev. Daniels isn't gay so the kid was protected! The molestations supposedly took place between 2004 and 2007. Originally Daniels was investigated in 2008 for molestation charges but police said they couldn't find enough evidence. A second child has since come forward with similar accusations and the two together apparently were sufficient to file charges this time.





Wasn't denying gays people from marrying supposed to magically stop children from being molested?





It hasn't been a good week for Religious Right types and their sexual hypocrisy.





If we go to the hotbed of Right-wing Republicanism, Maricopa County, Arizona another scandal is brewing. Fulton Brock is a far Right Republican Mormon. He is a member of the County Board of Supervisors.





In the last few days his wife, Susan, was arrested . Apparently Susan meet a member of her church and decided to seduce him. The problem was that this young Mormon was 14 years old at the time. For the last three years Susan has been engaging in sexual activities with the boy, though not full-on intercourse. In Bill Clinton lingo, it all depends on what sex means and this ins't sex, since it apparently was only blow jobs and masturbation.





Now, I am not one who thinks teenagers are children. But Republicans do, and Republicans support these laws, so the point about moral hypocrisy stands.





Brock, who has served as chairman of the board of supervisors three times, called on the public to pray for his family, of course. Apparently those prayers feel on deaf ears, if anything they made matters worse. A few days later Brock's daughter was also arrested for having several sexual encounters with the same boy. Arizona, being a conservative Republican state, has an absurdly high age of consent, well above the national average of 16. It is 18 in Arizona and the teen in question is now just 17.





It seems a bit kinky that both mother and daughter were fighting for the carnal pleasures of the same teenage boy. Admittedly, alleged photos of the "victim" indicate he is a piece of eye candy (see photo above, allegedly of the boy, photo by Rachel Brock). And I guess these Mormon Republicans couldn't resist but to lick the lollypop. Daughter Rachel, was charged with sexual conduct with a minor as well as furnishing him with obscene material. I can assure you it wasn't a photo of Mormons in their sexy (sic) magic underwear. Apparently she started first with the boy since the charges say he was 13 when she went after him. She also sent a video of herself masturbating to the boy's cell phone.





Of course, Mormons publicize themselves as advocate of family cohesion, and talk about the importance of family during times of trauma and difficulty. So how is this Mormon handling the situation. I'm sure that Fulton Brock will be there at his wife's side, condemning the sin but loving the sinner, forgiving her and working to heal their relationship. Oops! That doesn't seem to be the case. Almost as soon as the charges were filed, he was doing a little filing of his own, filing for divorce.





Supervisor Brock told the waiting press: "I have filed to divorce my wife. I cannot divorce my daughter." Wow! Please note that there has been no conviction for anything, not yet anyway. I would think that people who bashed gays so heavily on Proposition 8, in the name of family cohesion, would at least wait until there was a conviction before thrown the wife and daughter under the bus.





Apparently Susan Brock had access to the boy's on-line email account. To avoid them sending messages to each other she would go into his account and type a draft message to him. He would then type a draft message to her. They were never sent so the emails never showed up in an in-box or out-box, where they might easily be noticed. Mrs. Brock realized that these draft messages might be considered evidence.





So, she had some help from another conservative Republican activist, named Christian Weems. Mrs. Weems is also a member of the same Mormon church as Susan Brock. Weems came to Brock, in jail, and started hinting that if Brock gave her the password she could delete the messages.





Weems kept asking Brock for the "password" for a gate to a beach house. At first Brock was clueless (it comes with the territory). Brock said, "I don't remember a beach house, what are you talking about?" When Weems started suggesting passwords Brock figured it out and supplied her the password to the boy's account. Weems intended to go to the account and remove the evidence on behalf of her friend, but she was arrested before she could do that.





This implies that Weems was fully aware that Mrs. Brock was licking her eye-candy. Certainly she knew about the message system that Brock and the boy had set up. So it would appear she was aware of the relationship since Brock was then in prison and couldn't inform her after the fact. That Weems came to Brock to try to help her clearly indicates prior knowledge on her part. Newspapers report that numerous "high ranking" members of the Mormon Church will be called as witnesses.





Rahcel Brock published photos of the alleged boy on her website with comments that described him as "AWESOME!!!" wishing that "his awesomeness would rub off onto me," apparently something was rubbed off, just not the awesomeness. She said he knows how to "strut" his "studly stuff."





So, the coalition that passed Prop 8 were Catholics, Baptists and Mormons. And they were going to protect kids from married gays. Exactly who is protecting the kids from priests, Baptist preachers, and Mormon housewives? I'm waiting for Joe Arpaio to hold a press conference and tie the whole thing to undocumented Mexicans.

Rev. Tom Daniels is pastor of the Rio Linda Baptist Church, a fundamentalist church in northern California. He was also an activist who urged the passage of Proposition 8, to ban gay couples from being allowed to marry one another. Somehow preventing gay people from marrying is supposed to protect children, from something.... what is never quite made clear to me.

Labels: bigotry, hypocrisy, Prop 8