I tried…I really tried to give you all the sordid information on anti-gay Washington Republican State Rep. Richard Curtis’s activities last night, but now the police report is out.
There really isn’t any end to the depravity of the hypocrites in the moralist GOP. They want to deny LGBTs basic civil rights while behind closed doors they engage in the kinds of behavior that the professional Values Voter set publicly wrings their hands over.
Rep. Richard Curtis, a lawmaker in Washington state who voted against domestic partnerships for gay and lesbian couples and opposed an anti-discrimination law to cover sexual orientation, goes for the gold in terms of getting freaky. When I posted last night, Dan Savage over at Slog kept sending me kinkier and kinkier news on this Curtis, who engaged in mutual sexual activities" with male escort/porn actor Cody Castagna.
The legislator initially said that he was "helping out" Castagna with gas money (to avoid declaring that he was paying for sex). I found another update from Dan this AM, and Curtis got more than a "thank you" for the $100.
The police report shows that Curtis spilled the beans, as it were, and the gory details burst this homophobic pol's closet w-i-d-e open.
A stethoscope, lingerie, condoms, rope were found in the hotel room — the Curtis kink was on.
Curtis stated both he and the male walked into the lobby together. He told the male gain that he would give the male $100 to help him out but he was not paying him to have sex. Curtis and the male went up to Curtis’ room, which was 968. Once in the room Curtis gave the male $100…. Curtis and the male ultimately had anal intercourse on the bed in Curtis’ hotel room. The male performed intercourse on Curtis and the male’s semen and/or DNA would be on the inside of the condom while Curtis’ DNA would be on the exterior. Curtis said he was the person who received the anal sex.
More after the jump.
And this is what living a lie, denial and the closet does to people — ensure the spread of HIV. Curtis, a married man, makes a demand to have bareback sex with Castagna.
Now after reading this, I'm shaking my head. What's also in the police report is this unbelievable claim by Curtis. Dan Savage:
[Castagna] state [Curtis] was a “freak.” [Castagna] said that [Curtis] dressed in women’s lingerie during sex. [Castagna] said he used a condom and performed anal intercourse on [Curtis]…. After the sex act was completed [Curtis] told [Castagna] he wanted to perform “bareback sex” on [Castagna because Curtis] did not like the feel of condoms. [Castagna] told [Curtis] that he did not do that, that he didn’t know [Curtis], and that “bareback sex” was unsafe sex and was dangerous. [Curtis] asked [Castagna] “what would it take for you to do it.”
One final detail: After telling the police absolutely everything, Curtis decides to stop cooperating. Curtis suddenly claims that Castagna must have drugged him and states that he “was so out of it he really didn’t know what happened.” (Yes, that old excuse.) Curtis then tells investigators that, on the advice of his attorney, he can’t tell them what he was doing in Spokane. “I asked Curtis who his attorney was and he stated he could not find the business card and he could not recall his attorney’s name.”I guess the inner homo took over. Is demon possession next?
You can see news video of Castagna, who says he didn't extort Curtis — he simply provided professional sex services to him and didn't threaten him.
No criminal charges have been filed, btw.
59 Responses to “The closet door of Washington State Rep. Richard ‘Kink’ Curtis blasted open in scandal”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
That moustache and no one knew? Come on.
You can tell the GOP is rich because they have so many closets, filled with such varied and interesting things…
Man, that is so funny. Reminds me of the comedian who said the following as part of his stand-up act (can’t remember whose act it was):
With apologies to Rodgers and Hammerstein…I should work that up into a full-blown song parody.
What’s up with the womens’ clothing? It seems this guy buys into the doer/doee conception of sex where there’s an active partner and a passive one, and guess who’s who?
Man, when the door busts open on the Republicult closet, they come tumbling out like big old bowling balls.
Told’jah … I’ve posted (here) that abstinence (for sex outside the biblical minimums) was just a euphemism for barebacking (the practice being non gender-exclusive).
It’s just so hideously true, and deadly. I can’t get over how conventional media keeps looking the other way and allowing the (holier than moi) moral values douchebags to keep a fat thumb on the scale of their “success” rate living on the moral high ground.
Their hypocrisy creates better liars than good partners. It intentionally distorts real life abortion and contraception practice and statistics even among the moralizers (which failure rate for actual abstinence, STDs, unintended and/or terminated pregnancies, and so on equals that of NO protection at all).
It plays roulette with people’s lives who haven’t signed onto the insane theofascist mission to turn a crony government into an arm of a National Church.
And it kills and creates horrible suffering, in real ways every single day.
I’m just sickened by how cavalierly these hypocrites put innocent people at risk. If these assholes want to die for their sex practices, god speed. We need to stop them from persecuting others and putting vulnerable women, children and young people — those with less mobility, autonomy and the means to fight back than someone like me — at risk by distorting health information and impeding access to the best goods and services to which we’re all entitled.
With the guy having porn movies to his resume, yeah, $100 would NOT be his price for that kind of stuff, and $1000 wouldn’t be enough blackmail. I’m sure that was the agreed price.
For some reason it really PISSES me off that he tried to get away with paying only 20%, tried to talk the guy into unsafe sex, and then lied about being blackmailed. Kink is not the big problem here– trying fraud, endangerment, and false charges on a individual who is in a difficult position in society is just… so… evil.
My fists itch.
Also… Richard Curtis really looks a lot like this guy I know who seems kind of obsessed with homosexuality and how bisexuals will supposedly do anything.
You can see news video of Castagna, who says he didn’t extort Curtis — he simply provided professional sex services to him and didn’t threaten him.
Oh sure - he just happened to collect his billfold with all identifying information on his way out. I can TOTALLY see how that would happen.
I mean, come on. I’m amused by this and glad to see another closet door blown open on someone who’s actively worked against gay rights (never would want to see it blown open on anyone who hasn’t, though). But obviously the sex worker had ulterior motives for taking the billfold.
I should work that up into a full-blown song parody.
I’m always up for trying my hand at a filk:
Pay-for-it blowjobs in pale, silky knickers
Anti-gay GOP sex-crazy vicars
Caught all too often in FBI stings
These are a few of my favorite things.
The creepy behavior at daddy-daughter dances
Larry Craig’s awfully wide stances
Mark Foley’s inappropriate text messagings
These are a few of my favorite things
Ted Haggard getting hookers while methed-up and hyper
David Vitter all wrapped up in a diaper
Bob Allen and his twenty buck “misunderstandings”
These are a few of my favorite things
When Pelosi caves
When Reid flinches
When the Democrats just bend
I simply remember my favorite things
Like reading Pam’s House Blend
I wanted to work in Richard Curtis, Jeff Gannon, Ed Schrock, Rudy Giuliani, Thomas Ravenel, Richard and Lindsay Roberts and Gary Aldridge, but there wasn’t room. I hate to say it, but we need a longer song. No, wait, that’s wrong. In a schadenfreude sort of way, I’m actually pretty psyched that we need a longer song.
Yeah, it’s apparent from what has come out in the press that Castagna threatened to out Curtis’ to his wife (at least), which, under the circumstances, sounds a lot like extortion to me, no matter how much Curtis may have been asking for it. Castagna had a press conference, but his lawyer would not let him answer questions related to this aspect of events, which adds to my suspicion that he’s not totally innocent here.
That being said, I have no problem with Castagna outing Curtis, but he should have done so without threatening Curtis about it. The escort who outed Haggard just gave the press his story, he didn’t call Haggard and say “pay me X or I’ll tell!”
The schadenfreude quotient of this would be many times higher if I thought the “values voters” would see that Republican values are at fault for this kind of behavior (not the homo-sex, but the lying and cheating) and not just individual “weakness”.
But it never seems to works that way with them. They get ripped off by some smiling political con man, lick their wounds, bitch about how horrible he (usually a “he”) was, and then eagerly await to be taken by the next con man, without ever seeming to take responsibility for their own actions in this Groundhog Day-like political merry-go-round.
Wake up and smell the stupidity, you ignorant Red State / Red County
sheep“voters”…Why do I have the feeling that you’re referring to Curtis’ kinky / crossdressing preferences in a somewhat derogatory way, self-avowed plain-jane-lesbian Pam? I mean, I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you complained in the last post about how he’s kinky AND engaged in anti-gay politics, and now you’ve given him a nickname.
I mean sure, he’s hypocritical just like any closeted outwardly homophobic politician, and deserving of scorn on that account… but why does it matter in this case that he crossdresses and has a stethoscope and a rope in his hotel room? That’s BARELY kinky in my book. It’s not like he was peeing on the guy, demanding that he change his diapers or wielding a 2″ diameter fiberglass cane… and that just describes a typical day at kinky establishments here in NYC. Honestly, would it make you less sick if he was just blowing a guy’s condom’d dick in a back alley?
The barebacking is another story entirely. That’s not kinky–it’s just incredibly risky, irresponsible, and dumb.
Why do I have the feeling that you’re referring to Curtis’ kinky / crossdressing preferences in a somewhat derogatory way, self-avowed plain-jane-lesbian Pam?
I have said many times here on here and at my pad, that I could care less how these folks get their kinks on, or even that they are closeted when doing so, but when they try to legislate against me because of my orientation, the gloves come off.
That’s what makes me sick. And we all know that he and the escort aren’t telling the truth about it all.
The sad aspect of this is that you know that wasn’t the first time Curtis has asked a trick about barebacking. The closet in this case, can kill and harm loved ones and he didn’t give a damn.
All these closeted gay Republicans getting their comeuppance would be a never ending cornucopia of lulz, except for the fact that these Repugs want to deny gay people their basic rights. This is what happens when people are told that to be who they are is not OK. (I also agree that blackmail is not OK either - two wrongs do not make a right.)
I DID have to lol at the little detail of “Propel fitness water.” Not just any water, mind you, but Propel fitness water. For some reason, that’s funny - and I drink Propel.
Yeah, but isn’t that a milder version of saying, if you’re a fundamentalist bigot who’s also fat, the gloves come off and I’m going to call you fatphobic slurs? Or engaging in the common liberal-dude pastime of calling Ann Coulter a “tranny” and then claiming it’s OK because you have nothing against trannies and Ann Coulter is a horrible person?
Of course, you didn’t go so far as to use anything resembling a slur, and obviously he is kinky, in a boring and predictable, mild way. But you’re mocking him for it and implying that’s what makes you sick. Just think about how that sounds to your kinky readers–I’m sure you have quite a few.
FWIW I’m not all that kinky myself, although I’ve been known to enjoy some light S/M, biting, toys and goofy roleplaying now and then.
Bad ideas when you’re a closeted congress-critter: trying to rip off your same-sex prostitute. Honestly, couldn’t he just vote for another pay raise to make up the extra expense, anyway? Come on…
Betsy:
He was trying to extort $1000, and offered bareback sex for $1000. Now, that coincidence of amounts is not proof. It could be that he felt that he should be able to take this guy for a thousand bucks, and decided to go for extortion when he couldn’t get it for sex. But “making sure he got paid” is also a possibility.
Oh Holly, come on. You’re reading something that isn’t there. You’re arguing that because Pam claims to be relatively unkinky, and she’s describing this person’s kink, that she’s lambasting him for his kink. That doesn’t follow.
However, his anti-gay voting record, along with the “my god, children walk down Fulsom Street!” rhetoric surrounding the anti-gay movement in US politics, make his kink EVEN MORE DELICIOUSLY HYPOCRITICAL than if he were just looking to play with someone else’s pee pee. … And, Pam is allowed to join in the LOLing, even if she’s not a self-avowed kinkster.
No matter what else is going on, I don’t buy the claim that a closeted public figure who had just bought gay porn while cross-dressed (for the third or more time at the same porn store) then taken someone to his hotel room for sex gave the guy his wallet with ID as an IOU for $800.
He stiffed the guy, and then fell asleep on him -moron. (and yes, pun noted), and then the hustler took the wallet with the full intention of extorting the rest of the money. But I do buy the fact that $1000 was agreed on, once it becomes an establshed fact that it was a paying transaction.
No comment from the other Republican colleagues. Imagine that.
I have said many times here on here and at my pad, that I could care less how these folks get their kinks on, or even that they are closeted when doing so, but when they try to legislate against me because of my orientation, the gloves come off.
Wow, Pam. I cannot even believe you just wrote that. You should be ashamed of yourself. Holly is absolutely right, and there is no excuse for mocking this guy’s kinks. That makes you no better than that the so-called progressives that call Ann Coulter a tranny. Call this guy out on his hypocrisy, not his fetishes.
Longhaired weirdo,
I think you have the bareback thing backward. The snippet from the report makes it clear that Curtis was the one pushing for it, and that Castenega refused.
Looks like the $1000 was for the protected sex, with barebacking completely off the table.
(Not to mention that Curtis was perfectly okay with the condom use when he was on the bottom, but wanted to bareback when he was going to be on top, which just adds to his assholery. As it were.)
kxo,
Calling Ann Coulter a tranny is different than identifying this man by his fetishes for a couple of reasons. One reason is that this guy does, in fact, have these fetishes, whereas Ann Coulter has probably always been a woman. Another and more important reason is that this guy’s kink magnifies his hypocrisy, whereas Ann Coulter’s putative adam’s apple has absolutely no bearing on her anti-gay politics.
Wow, Dennis, way to completely miss the point. His kinks should be completely irrelevant to our discussion here on this blog, not held up as evidence that he’s an extra-bad person. Like Holly said, it’s the same as using fatphobic slurs to try and discredit someone.
And what if Ann Coulter really were trans? Would you be justified in mocking her for that? What is this, grade school? You’re probably right that his kinks magnify his hypocrisy, but that is no excuse for treating said kinks as if they were his offenses. The point of this debate shouldn’t be that he has sex with male sex workers and likes some almost-vanilla props, it’s that he’s a liar and hypocrite.
Honestly, I shouldn’t have to tell you this.
kxo and holly are really missing the boat.
The mockery is that Curtis, given his “family values” political persuasion, is part of a crowd that doesn’t allow for consideration of anything other than procreative missionary position sex. Everything else, including kink, is dirty, wrong and worthy of damnation.
The fact that Curtis is caught in a laundry list of behaviors that he would publicly condemn if the same thing happened to someone else is what the real problem is.
It’s telling that none of his Republican colleagues have come forward to defend the cheapskate hypocrite’s right to hire a rent boy on the DL and engage in pleasures of the flesh.
No, the fetish thing is relevant.
Because fetishes are not limited to the gay community, and the whole Moral Values Crusade is as much against any non-standard form of heterosexual expression as it is against homosexual expression.
It’s why we can call an anti-gay straight congressman who hires female hookers and uses meth as much of a hypocrite as a gay one.
It adds a separate dimension to the level of his hypocrisy.
Once again, in chorus. The hypocrisy (and the problem) does not lie with the guy’s kinks, nor does it lie with his sexual orientation (whatever that might be.) It lies with the fact that he ran for election specifically as an upholder of conventional values and has acted specifically to attack the rights of others to engage in consensual kink or consensual gay sex or relationships, while engaging in them himself.
As to mocking him, I didn’t get that from Pam’s statements, but y’know what? As far as I am concerned, she would be more than free to do so if she chose.
Just as I would support someone who said that homosexual activity is morally wrong but must be legally and constitutionally allowed and cannot be infringed. I would disagree, but that is not the same thing. People are welcome to try to talk me out of what they think I am doing wrong, as long as they leave me alone when I walk away and stop listening.
There is an entirely separate conversation that we cannot yet really have in this country about, having all agreed that consenting adults are welcome to do whatever they choose, how to work out the when and where and what is appropriate at certain times and places.
Pam,
Cross posted. I agree with your points.
I think it’s just easy to get carried away with mocking hypocrites. You’re right, kxo, that his kinks don’t make him an extra-bad person, but they do make him an extra-big hypocrite. Having fun at the former expense is wrong, but having fun at the latter expense is pretty much required, IMO.
I don’t know this guy’s record on reproductive rights, but I’d guess it’s as shitty as his record on gay rights, and his “family values” are probably of the “missionary and for procreation only” type. So his cross-dressing or liking toys or whatever aren’t a big deal generally — people like to do stuff — but they are a big deal when he likes his kinks and wants to restrict sex to vanilla-hetero-baby-oriented sex.
Question is, how does one go about mocking the hypocrisy without mocking the behavior? The answer, generally, is “very carefully.” But when someone so deliciously awful goes and explodes with hypocrisy, it’s hard to be careful and ever so easy to go hog wild with the glee and the s’freude. So I think Pam’s point about gloves coming off is more of the vibe of her having a hard time carefully constructing a nuanced and fair argument when the temptation is so great to just aim both barrels at the asshole and pull the trigger. Pam’s writing in more than just this one blog entry indicates that she’s sensitive to these and many other issues, but, like any person, sometimes isn’t perfect. So maybe she could have been more sensitive in cabining off the hypocrisy regarding kink from the kink itself, but I don’t see what she wrote as knocking kink specifically.
“Because fetishes are not limited to the gay community, and the whole Moral Values Crusade is as much against any non-standard form of heterosexual expression as it is against homosexual expression.”
Exactly. Ultimately it’s about removing all individuality, eliminating any barriers between that which is public and that which is private, opening up every aspect of your existence to scrutiny and moral judgment by people who’ve decided they know what’s best for society and have appointed themselves as arbiters of all behavior.
The recent attacks on the Frost family and anyone who dares to be different for any reason are an indicator of where this is headed. The Ministry of Love will weigh all of us and we will be found wanting…
Not the same thing at all. More like, “If you’re a public advocate of ‘healthy living’ — who moreover espouses massive legal disincentives and/or punitive measures fior someone like me, who enjoys creme brulee when I’m dining at a restaurant — and you privately gorge on banana splits and mounds of bacon until you’re immobile, I’m going to call you out on it.” That wouldn’t really be condemning or humiliating everybody who eats banana splits and mounds of bacon, would it?Did he refuse? Or did Curtis get what he wanted? We only have Curtis’ word for what happened. The other guy was caught in a sting, but is claiming he was innocent of extortion… it seems like his defense might be he was trying to collect a debt.
ekf,
You phrased it better than I could have. You’re exactly right, but I still stand by my assertion that Pam is stigmatizing kinky sex acts (”Richard ‘Kink’ Curtis”?). Whether or not it’s intended makes no difference, as either way it’s still regressive.
<sarcasm>My dad voted Rethuglican, his dad voted Rethuglican, his granddad voted Rethuglican, I’m a-gonna vote Rethuglican! Because blindly following in my ancestors’ footsteps, without thought or heed, is The American Way!</sarcasm>
Okay now that I’ve wiped the tears from my eyes. . . is this a new version of “ass, gas or grass, no one rides for free?”
A republican so selfish that he only cared about his pleasure not about the risk he was putting someone else in (his wife). Who’d a thunk it?
I’m beginning to think those who are telling on these republican hypocrites are playing one up mans ship. “Okay so Haggard guy didn’t black mail, so I gotta to do one better.”
Makes me also wonder how many more closet doors are going to be thrown open. . . I wonder if I have enough popcorn …. I saw this re-work of the Republican convention logo today . . . . I think they should go with it
cminus, your lines don’t scan and you miss the meter by a mile from the git-go. Thanks for trying, but I’ll do my own parody when I have a moment.
cminus, your lines don’t scan and you miss the meter by a mile from the git-go. Thanks for trying, but I’ll do my own parody when I have a moment.
Meh, it’s hard to get anything past the rhyme scheme down when you’re composing as you write.
You look at the photos of these guys and wonder how they evaded the f-word label for so long.
Sometimes I wonder if that isn’t one of the biggest reasons for the whole anti-gay marriage thing.
Because up until pretty darn recently, the answer to “Are you gay” could be “I am married” and that settled it. Everybody knew that nobody who was married could possibly be queer.
We’re already seeing that assumption fraying badly. But if gay people can get married, then a wedding ring is not automatically going to be a gaydar repellent.
Closets are far harder to maintain than they used to be, when people like Liberace and Paul Lynde were assumed to be straight. And the more gay people you know, the easier it is to spot the rest of us.
Anyone else waiting for the Matt Lauer interview of this guy?
It’s more likely that Pam is making a pun here referring to the (awesome) saxophonist - King Curtis
I’m actually finding it a little hard to believe that the Democratic closet seems to be so … bare. I mean, the only prominent Dem who I can recall being outed in the last few years is Jim McGreevey, who’s basically Mister Gay Vanilla (he had a *commitment ceremony*). I assume there still are Democratic politician closet cases (het or gay), but it sure seems as though they’re very rare compared to the Republicans.
It guess I thought the general level of repression in the country was high enough to keep a lot of Dems in the closet, too. Do you-all who know more think that it’s selective attention to Republicans? Or is it (a) being a Republican means you’re more likely to become a closet case, or (b) being a closet case means you’re more likely to become a Republican, as you try to get society to hold the door shut for you?
You have to realize this is playing big up here in Spokane, especially after the Larry Craig show. This region has been quite happy with keeping its closets hidden behind the drapes, but there has always been a generous degree of tolerance (except in the homeless shelter business–another really ugly story when it was 22ºF last night). There is, for example, a very open and supportive high school program for LGBT kids in the community; and last winter (during the US National Ice Skating Championships) most of the retail business community could be seen holding out their large open palms, welcoming the rainbow.
Craig and Curtis are like bad zits on a the face of the conservative community. Most just want it to quickly go away, and that includes the local commercial and corporate media. The sore spot here is the festering (more like fostering) of the Russian organized criminal elements who are strongly allied with the extreme xTian communities (lots of them up in the “hills”) through the Watchmen of the Walls movement. Curtis’s senseless and stupid behavior encourages these insane, twisted freaks to go “hunting.”
I understand that. But I think I nailed the first stanza pretty well. I especially like that it’s packed and not just full of filler. I thought “Anti-gay GOP sex-crazy vicars” was good, but I think I want that changed to “Anti-gay GOP boy-crazy vicars” now.
Um, nosir. No they weren’t.A stethoscope? I’m so confused.
“…people like Liberace and Paul Lynde were assumed to be straight…”
Wrong. They were understood to be “light in the loafers”, and marked as a type of “swishy” person who everybody knew was really gay, but nobody would come right out and say it…
Godmonkey, it depends on who’s doing the assuming. Paul Lynde said that old ladies would come up to him all the time and ask him why he hadn’t found a nice girl and settled down. Lots of people lived in denial about gay celebrities, even flamboyant ones, as long as they possibly could, basically until Rock Hudson revealed that he had AIDS.
Boy Howdy! I’d bet they’ve been to the Notel Motel in Stevens Pass, Washington. Hourly rates … water beds … and no apologies.
Perhaps the establishment is now the Don’tAskDon’tel Motel?
What an asshat. I really wouldn’t care who/what he fucks/pays to fuck except for all of the vile family values nonsense spewing from the other end. At least he was after grown ups for consensual relations. Hypocrite!
cminus, your lines don’t scan and you miss the meter by a mile from the git-go
That’s why I tend to
Do parody in haiku;
Consider it too…
Wait wait wait - Liberace was gay?
Ms. Kate,
Yes, Liberace and Paul Lynde did once visit the Notel Motel in Stevens Pass, Washington. It was late September 1966.
ekf,
Sure, true enough. In a previous era — say, late September 1966 — it would take an at least moderately urbane person to have any kind of gaydar, even in flaming cases. Oddly enough, midwestern church ladies always seemed to adore archetypically gay men like Liberace or Paul Lynde. During Culture Club’s 11 months in the spotlight, Boy George was a huge fave among America’s grannies. Seemed weird to me at the time. (Surely they knew he was gay? But it was 1983 by then.)
Wait wait wait - there’s a Notel Motel?
Yep, Tom, My folks have pictures of it somewhere, when we were headed to Wenatchee or Spokane for some reason.
We’re talking 1970s to early 80s here.
I’m all for swinging the closet doors open, i just wish these guys would get around to it *before* they joined the anti-gay party. I mean, you can’t even get into the party without slamming the closet door tight behind you– so that no one gets out!
there’s nothing wrong with being kinky. but i have to admit i’m a little jealous– these guys seem to have all the fun.
There’s a 41-page police report on the incident and it all comes across as sad and rather sleazy. A few things that you don’t seem to mention in your story, although it’s late, I’m tired, and scanning rather than reading in depth: Curtis was a repeat customer at the porn store where he picked up his rent boy; Curtis had repeatedly discussed his fetish for wearing women’s clothing with the female clerk who worked at the porn store; As a repeat customer, Curtis surely knew that porn stores have video cameras everywhere, yet he engaged in consensual sex with another man (not his rent boy) in the store; Curtis rendezvoused with his rent boy at the hotel where he, Curtis, was registered in his own name; said hotel had videocameras everywhere (which Curtis must have known); Curtis rented XXX gay porn in his hotel room (the hotel turned over the records to the police); Curtis’ hotel room used a computerized keycard, which writes a record every time it is used (so the cops know exactly what time he and his rent boy entered and left the room; Curtis solicited the rent boy for an act of unsafe sex which the rent boy refused at first, until Curtis (apparently) asked him how much he would take for him to do it; Curtis then (apparently) tried to get away with NOT paying the rent boy the agreed sum; Curtis then tried to contact a fellow republican in the Washington police force to ensure a coverup; Curtis lied to the police at least once, if not more times.
I’m not sure the kid is worth $1,000 (there’s speculation about that at Dan Savage’s blog), but if they agreed on a price, Curtis should’ve paid up and kept his mouth shut. At any rate, it sounds to me like Curtis was trying to get busted. What do you think?
I blogged the whole thing. I have a real interest in exposing hypocritical antigay closeted republicans.
I just want to say, for the record, that I don’t give a crap whether or not Liberace or Paul Lynde were gay, though from what I’ve heard, Lynde was a tortured sort of individual and I feel badly for him because of that. He was a very funny man.
Okay, found a few minutes to work on the song parody. For references, you can go here:
If you check out Washington’s legislative page, you’ll find that Rep. Curtis is gone, gone, gone. That was fast. I hope Larry Craig fails to heed that lesson. It would be too bad for the news outlets to let Craig go.
Oh, very nice, DBK!!
HE RESIGNED
http://www.horsesass.org/?p=3695
DBK, that was beautiful.
Aw, gee…you guys…I don’t know what to say. I’m all verklempt. I…I…*sniff*…I want to thank all of you, you people, out there in the dark, sitting in your basements, appreciating things…me…I’m just so overwhelmed by the external validation of it all.
And wasn’t that stuff from Horsley too bizarre? Yet the guy is anti-gay. Go figure.