Posted on 04/08/2014 10:45:52 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
April 08, 2014, 12:54 pm Husband of woman McAllister kissed: 'He has wrecked my life'
By Rebecca Shabad
The husband of the woman who was caught kissing Rep. Vance McAllister (R-La.) in a video that surfaced Monday says the congressman has destroyed his life and marriage.
“I’m just freaking devastated by the whole deal, man. I loved my wife so much. I cannot believe this. I cannot freaking believe it. I feel like I’m going to wake up here in a minute, and this is all going to be a bad nightmare,” Heath Peacock told CNN on Tuesday.
Peacock told CNN he wasn’t aware of what happened until his wife, Melissa Peacock, 33, called him a few hours before the news broke.
“He has wrecked my life,” Peacock said of McAllister on CNN. “We’re headed for divorce.”
The couple has been married for six years, and they have a 6-year-old son.
“It was just a kiss; that was all it was, but it embarrassed me and my family,” Peacock said. “This guy has turned my life upside down.”
His wife was seen kissing McAllister in surveillance footage that went viral on Monday. The Ouachita Citizen said it obtained the video clip from an anonymous source. It was recorded on Dec. 23, a month after McAllister was sworn into office.
Melissa Peacock was the congressman’s district scheduler, and was taken off payroll as of Monday night.
McAllister, meanwhile, says he doesn’t plan to resign and has asked God, his family and his constituents for forgiveness.
The congressman said he told his wife of 16 years about the encounter earlier this year, and they are working through it.
McAllister was elected to replace Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-La.) in a special election last fall. He ran ads touting his Christian faith, but Peacock told CNN he believed that was just a ploy for votes.
"I know his beliefs. When he ran one of his commercials, he said ‘I need your prayers,’ and I asked, ‘When did you get religious?’ He said, ‘When I needed votes,’ ” Peacock said. “He broke out the religious card, and he’s about the most nonreligious person I know.”
I wasn’t talking about the husband. Kapich? I think maybe I was talking directly to the a-hole.
No it would not. Under sexual harassment, as long as one of the parties is in a supervisor position, it is ver botten to engage in personal relations with another person, even if the person in the lesser position was positively begging for it.
Do you mean *just* on the job - what about *off* the job? Because this situation just developed in our dept... and it’s two women.
It is my understanding that as long as a supervisor is in a position to influence your employment in a department, it is a line that a supervisor does not cross. For a relationship to be permissible, one of the parties would have to leave the department altogether.
That’s our policy, but this manipulation is in the budding stages, i.e., can’t be proved yet.
Yeah, I’m sure once the husband has made it through the CPS investigation and the IRS audit he’ll get right to work redeeming her flawed character.
She is not remorseful. She is immoral and a dog. Ruining two families, 6 children and the lives of two men she ‘loved’. What a train wreck. She belongs in the gutter.
Without consequences morality without meaning, it is for CHUMPS. Thanks to faultless immorality that’s where we are today.
twenty second ‘kiss’.
he stands with his back to the camera for seven seconds. Looks like he thinks he is out of view.
steps up to the light switch by the door and turns the lights out.
steps back to where he was.
then a little later, they both walk up to the door and make out for twenty seconds in the dark.
camera has a low light setup.
You can’t watch the video without getting a strong impression that this isn’t the first time they’ve kissed. Its probably also not all they’ve done. The body language is pretty clear.
Adultery is a biblicaly supported cause for divorce.
This may be prudent company policy, but it is not the law.
I didn’t say anything about it being illegal. That’s just the standard sexual harassment policies that most corporations have.
Once again, this may be good company policy but it is not required by law.
I worked for a company that simply required full disclosure by both parties of any sexual relationship. Failure to disclose was grounds for termination, but the relationship itself was not necessarily cause for dismissal or even transfer.
Clinton signed into law that a person can claim sexual harassment if that person had consensual sex with his or her superior out of fear for their job. Clinton then turned around and did just that. You’ll hear talk about Monica showing Clinton her thongs. But believe me, Monica had already read the signals that Clinton wanted it. She could have filed suit and won by saying she was afraid to turn him down.
What I’m saying is I wouldn’t be surprised if Peacock says this about her congressman boss.
From the EEOC website:
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/fs-sex.cfm
Most claims of sexual harassment are never litigated. Many companies often settle even frivolous complaints because the cost of defending against them are deemed to be greater than the expected benefit from having the case dismissed.
A couple of hundred years ago, when birth control was unavailable and/or unreliable, and when the family business/farm/fortune passed either legally or by fiat to male heirs, that was a valid point-not to mention that many men considered women chattel, just like the ones in some backward muslim countries do today.
But since at least the past 100 years or so, a man can-and should be tarred with the same brush of shame and responsibility-I put my first husband out by pointing a pistol at him for screwing around, and divorced him. He didn’t get off cheaply, or with anyone’s approval, and that is as it should be-we do not live in a feudal society.
Unless either the woman, or McAllister can prove sexual harassment by the other-which doesn’t look likely, they both own equal responsibility for their inappropriate conduct.
You have your opinion, and you are entitled to it-just as I’m entitled to mine, and I respectfully disagree with you.
Women get pregnant, men do not.
And that explains the world.
It takes two to tango.
Nuh uh...
ROFL!
Well, I must have missed the memo-I’ve been pregnant, and while it was a wonderful experience, it didn’t explain the world to me, as it relates to law and custom...
A woman can choose to use birth control or not-and there are those things in little packages called condoms-a man can be responsible, too. Both sexes are equally responsible for their behavior and the results of it. Guys do not get a pass to play horndog any more, just because they do not get pregnant...
If a guy is worried about the kids his wife bears not being his, why is he married to that woman? And if he is that mistrustful of the fidelity and sexuality of all women, then he has a real problem and doesn’t need to be married at all-he needs to be in therapy.
I’ve always thought that those claims were just a piñata for disgruntled employees-mostly females-and litigious lawyers to hit to get a few bucks raining down-I think every one should be researched top to bottom before being settled.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.