Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Haggard stepping down amid gay affair inquiry
Denver Post ^ | 11-2-06 | Denver Post

Posted on 11/02/2006 2:45:28 PM PST by dogbyte12

The leader of one of Colorado's most popular mega-churches, Ted Haggard, is temporarily stepping down from his leadership role, after allegations from a male prostitute that Haggard solicited gay sex.

Haggard, the founder and senior leader of the 14,000-member New Life Church in Colorado Springs and president of the multimillion- member National Association of Evangelicals, denied the accusations raised by the prostitute on Wednesday.

Today, a press conference by church leaders to support Haggard was cancelled shortly before it was scheduled to take place.

In stepping down, it was emphasized that Haggard did not admit any wrongdoing, but that he felt his effectiveness would be hampered by the cloud of inquiry.

Male escort Mike Jones of Denver told 9News he'd had a three-year sexual business relationship with Haggard.

Jones went public about their alleged relationship Wednesday morning on talk radio.

"People may look at me and think what I've done is immoral, but I think I had to do the moral thing in my mind and that is expose someone who is preaching one thing and doing the opposite behind everybody's back," Jones told 9News.

The station spoke to Haggard outside his home in Colorado Springs, and he fervently denied the allegations. Haggard is married and has five children.

"I've never had a gay relationship with anybody. ... I am steady with my wife. I'm faithful to my wife. I don't know if this is election-year politics or if this has to do with the marriage amendment or what it is," Haggard said.

The Denver Post could not reach Haggard for comment.

Haggard has been one of the major proponents for a state constitutional ban on gay marriage.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: atheistsareobsolete; christianity; colorado; homosexualagenda; religion; religionisobsolete; tedhaggard
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 281-295 next last
To: streetpreacher

*sigh* whew what a refreshing post! Thanks for that.


181 posted on 11/03/2006 1:07:11 AM PST by Im4Decency
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback

This Mike Jones guy, played the tapes for #9 in Denver, who got a nationally known voice expert to listen to them. The expert thinks it is Haggard. The person uses the name Art. Haggard's middle name is Arthur.

I was skeptical before. Not now. I think he did it.


182 posted on 11/03/2006 2:36:12 AM PST by dogbyte12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: tjd1454; fatez
Or his behavior may be indicative of someone who is guilty of something else. The only voicemail I've read about is in regards to obtaining methamphetamine, so it could be that this guy's drug dealer also happens to be a gay prostitute. If so, he would be guilty, just not of what he's accused of.

This is strictly conjecture, of course.
183 posted on 11/03/2006 2:59:59 AM PST by Bat_Chemist (Ecclesiastes 10:2, NIV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Bat_Chemist
The acting senior pastor at New Life, Ross Parsley, told KKTV-TV of Colorado Springs that Haggard admitted that some of the accusations were true. "I just know that there has been some admission of indiscretion, not admission to all of the material that has been discussed but there is an admission of some guilt," Parsley told the station.


(He's toast)

184 posted on 11/03/2006 3:02:50 AM PST by dogbyte12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12

They just reported on Imus that Ted Haggard has admitted the story about him is true. I want to see this verified before I believe it, but I suspect it is or he wouldn't have stepped down as pastor of his church. Sad deal if true.


185 posted on 11/03/2006 3:19:07 AM PST by dmw (Aren't you glad you use common sense, don't you wish everybody did?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dmw

What I saw I think it was on CNN was that an associate of Haggard's was telling the media that the reason he stepped down is because he admitted some degree of guilt or culpability for SOMETHING, but not the whole story that this Jones is saying. CNN is absolutely rejoicing over whatever it is.



186 posted on 11/03/2006 3:22:55 AM PST by txrangerette ("We are fighting al-Qaeda, NOT Aunt Sadie"...Dick Cheney commenting on the wiretaps!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: All
If this true, NO PROBLEMO... Let's get rid off him. It will be another chance to show the world the Republican party and decent churches do not put up with this sick behavior

The homosexuals did it to the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, why not others?... so welcome to the club!.. BUT unlike the Catholic Church I hope the evangelicas show they are different and will not shup up about it and keep quiet the way the Catholics do. So there!


…PROTECT MARRIAGE !... Your children deserve it as wholesome as possible…

You saw what happened in NEW JERSEY!... Don't let it happen in your state! Colorado, Virginia, Tennessee, Arizona, Iowa, Wisconsin, South Dakota and South Carolina see details below how to vote on all 8 states - links to each state’s election boards - etc)

Why gays hate marriage - By Kevin McCullough - Sunday, October 29, 2006 -- [ excerpt ] --

Despite of all that their angry-mob front groups argue for in front of television cameras to the contrary, radical homosexual activists despise the institution and more importantly the sanctity of marriage. That is also the fundamental reason why they are seeking to destroy the institution.

This week - dateline Trenton New Jersey... where a unified panel of seven judges agreed that illegitimate sexual unions should be made equitable under law to that of monogamous married persons. Without the consent of the governed these tyrants in black robes sat in judgment of healthy families across the universe and demanded that New Jersey residents accept immoral construction of sexual unions as the equal basis for families and family life in their recreated sexual, liberal, utopia.

With utter contempt for God, and for the voters of their state the New Jersey seven unanimously said that all who live in the confines of its borders must fundamentally agree to the moral premise, that what the Bible terms perversion, the voters should call healthy.

But why? What's the real goal of the activists, the judges, and the radicals who seek to subvert a moral world view? The answer is simple, no longer satisfied with practicing the unspeakable perverse sexual pleasures that their hearts seek in private bedrooms, they wish to be able to do so in public. They are also suffering from such immense guilt over the actions of their sexual behaviors because they know inherently that the actions they perform are in fact unhealthy - that they will go to any means necessary to try and shut down the voices in their heads that tell them it is wrong….

Eight states are voting on amendments to their Constitutions. All of them seek to protect marriage essentially the same way as Arizona's amendment describes it below


...The Protect Marriage Arizona amendment will preserve the definition of marriage as “a union between one man and one woman” and prohibit the creation of any other legal status similar to that of marriage. It will assure that marriage is defined by the voice of the people and not by a few activist judges.
I am hearing rumors that the homosexual agenda research institute (kidding!), as most lefty organizations... resort to lies or disinformation To confuse the voters purposely, on how to vote on the ANTI-GAY-MARRIAGE amendments in the different states. So, I did the research for every of the eight states voting on amendments to their constitutions preserving the definition of marriage as “a union between one man and one woman.”

All of the eight states define the amendment (change/addition to the state's Constitution) essentially the same way. Arizona defines the amendment this way:

All states handle this by having the voters vote on once, except for COLORADO that requires voting on twice: one amendment and one Referendum.

-- Public Announcement from EP -- :)


* VIRGINIA Vote "YES" (to add amendment) (see links for VIRGINIA at the bottom)

* WISCONSIN Vote "YES" (to add amendment) (see links for WISCONSIN at the bottom)

* TENNESSEE Vote "YES" (to add amendment) (see links for TENNESSEE at the bottom)

* ARIZONA Vote "YES" (to add amendment) (see links for ARIZONA at the bottom)

* SOUTH DAKOTA Vote "YES" (to add amendment) (see links for SOUTH DAKOTA at the bottom)

* SOUTH CAROLINA Vote "YES" (to add amendment) (see links for SOUTH CAROLINA at the bottom)

* COLORADO

****** On Amendment 43 (Marriage)> Vote "YES" (to add amendment)

****** On Referendum I: Vote "Do not approve" or "NO" (To reject it,depending on how the question is phrased. Don't trust homosexual groups - they lie and confuse issues - this should be looked more carefully since it can be approved later anyway.

(Colorado is more complicated. It has 2 items: Adding Amendment 43 (Vote "YES) and approving Referenum I (Vote NO or Do NOT approve). See COLORADO at bottom for details)


* VIRGINIA *

Virginia State Board of Elections

Virginia: The amendment - Ballot question # 1 (page 3)

1 FINAL COPY Proposed Constitutional Amendment To Be Voted on at the November 7, 2006, Election PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT Article I. Bill of Rights. Section 15-A. Marriage. BALLOT QUESTION NUMBER 1

Excerpt -------------------------

EXPLANATION Present Law The Constitution does not define marriage. Under current statutory law in Virginia, persons who marry must have a license and be married by a licensed minister, judge, or other person authorized by law to perform marriages. Present law prohibits marriages between certain individuals. For example, the law prohibits a marriage between a brother and sister, between a couple where one of the parties is married to someone else, and between couples of the same sex. In 1975, the General Assembly enacted a statute (present Code of Virginia § 20- 45.2) that states "A marriage between persons of the same sex is prohibited." In 1997, the General Assembly added a sentence to § 20-45.2 that states that: 2 Any marriage entered into by persons of the same sex in another state or jurisdiction shall be void in all respects in Virginia and any contractual rights created by such marriage shall be void and unenforceable. In 2004, the General Assembly passed a law to prohibit certain civil unions or other arrangements between persons of the same sex. That law (Code of Virginia § 20- 45.3) states that: A civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage is prohibited. Any such civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement entered into by persons of the same sex in another state or jurisdiction shall be void in all respects in Virginia and any contractual rights created thereby shall be void and unenforceable.

Thus, civil unions or other arrangements which purport ?to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage? are prohibited by statute.

Proposed Amendment If approved by the voters, this proposed amendment will become part of the Constitution of Virginia. The proposed amendment adds a definition of marriage as the ?union between one man and one woman? to the Constitution's Bill of Rights and prohibits Virginia and its counties, cities, and towns from creating or recognizing any legal status by any name which is comparable to marriage. Marriage in the Commonwealth creates specific legal rights, benefits, and obligations for a man and a woman. There are other legal rights, benefits, and obligations which will continue to be available to unmarried persons, including the naming of an agent to make end-of-life decisions by an Advance Medical Directive (Code of Virginia § 54.1-2981), protections afforded under Domestic Violence laws (Code of Virginia § 18.2- 57.2), ownership of real property as joint tenants with or without a right of survivorship (Code of Virginia § 55-20.1), or disposition of property by will (Code of Virginia § 64.1- 46).

A "yes" vote on the proposed amendment will result in the addition of the proposed Section 15-A to Article I, the Bill of Rights. A "no" vote will mean that there will be no change made in Article I, the Bill of Rights."


* WISCONSIN *

Winsconsin State Elections Board website

Winsconsin:November 2006 Referenda Questions

Winsconsin:See the actual document (the amendment)


* COLORADO *

Colorado Secretary of State – Elections Center

Colorado:Amendments and Referendums

[1] Colorado: Amendment 43 (Marriage)

[2] Referendum I: Referendum I Referendum I Colorado Legislative Council Staff FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT Date: August 31, 2006 Fiscal Analyst: Janis Baron — 303-866-3523 BALLOT TITLE: SHALL THERE BE AN AMENDMENT TO THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES TO AUTHORIZE DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS, and, in connection therewith, enacting the "colorado domestic partnership benefits and responsibilities act" to extend to same-sex couples in a domestic partnership the benefits, protections, and responsibilities that are granted by colorado law to spouses.....

Summary of Legislation

Upon voter approval, Referendum I establishes legal domestic partnerships in the state of Colorado. Additionally, it specifies eligibility requirements, definitions, procedures, rights, responsibilities, and means for terminating domestic partnerships. The fiscal note cannot accurately project the number of domestic partnerships that would be entered into in Colorado should Referendum I be adopted. For purposes of this analysis, the fiscal note assumes 3,500 annually.


* TENNESSEE *

Tennessee Division of Elections

Tennessee Constitutional Amendment # 1 (Marriage - Page 3)

Constitutional Amendment #1 (Page 3)

Shall Article XI of the Constitution of the State of Tennessee be amended by adding the following language as a new, appropriately designated section: SECTION___. The historical institution and legal contract solemnizing the relationship of one man and one woman shall be the only legally recognized marital contract in this state. Any policy or law or judicial interpretation, purporting to define marriage as anything other than the historical institution and legal contract between one man and one woman, is contrary to the public policy of this state and shall be void and unenforceable in Tennessee. If another state or foreign jurisdiction issues a license for persons to marry and if such marriage is prohibited in this state by the provisions of this section, then the marriage shall be void and unenforceable in this state.


* ARIZONA *

Arizona Secretary of State - 2006 Ballot Propositions and Judicial...

Arizona Proposition 107: Proposing an amendment to the constitution of arizona; amending the constitution of arizona; by adding article xxx; relating to the protection of marriage...

OFFICIAL TITLE AN INITIATIVE MEASURE

proposing an amendment to the constitution of arizona; amending the constitution of arizona; by adding article xxx; relating to the protection of marriage

~[snip]~

The Protect Marriage Arizona amendment will preserve the definition of marriage as “a union between one man and one woman” and prohibit the creation of any other legal status similar to that of marriage. It will assure that marriage is defined by the voice of the people and not by a few activist judges.

A “yes” vote will protect Arizona from having marriage radically changed to a union of any two people regardless of gender. It will affirm that both mothers and fathers play significant roles in the raising of children and that the legal union between a man and a woman deserves special status in producing the next generation of responsible citizens.

A “yes” vote will not prohibit same-sex couples or anyone else from forming relationships. It will, however, keep schools, media, organizations, religious denominations, and other societal institutions from being forced to validate, and promote same-sex “marriage”.

A “yes” vote will not invalidate anyone’s civil rights. Marriage is about bringing men and women together, not about civil rights.

A “yes” vote will not restrict private companies from voluntarily granting benefits to domestic partners, nor will it prevent domestic relationships from taking advantage of existing laws that enable these individuals to share health insurance or death benefits, designate hospital visitation rights, or grant medical durable power of attorney to anyone.

A “yes” vote will affirm that marriage between a man and a woman is the foundation of a strong family and that strong families are the foundation of great nations.

~[snip]~

ARGUMENTS “FOR” PROPOSITION 107 Protect Marriage Arizona’s Statement Protect Marriage Arizona has been formed as a grassroots response to attacks on marriage in state after state. We say, “Let the people decide.” We believe Arizona citizens should be given the opportunity to vote on our state’s marriage policy, and we are confident that Arizona will join 20 other states that have voted to reaffirm the reality that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. A state constitutional amendment provides the strongest possible legal protection for marriage against redefinition by activist state court judges. We also hope to show our national leaders that states want the opportunity to support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution protecting marriage. Marriage between a man and woman is the basic building block of society. As the Supreme Court put it, in a case upholding laws that prevented marriage from being redefined to include polygamy, “marriage is the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization.” Arizona promotes and benefits marriage because marriage between a man and a woman benefits Arizona. Children do best when they have the security of living with a married mother and father. With all the challenges to marriage in society today, the last thing Arizona needs is to redefine marriage in a way that guarantees some children will never have either a mom or a dad. Unfortunately, today’s courts seem bent on destroying that foundation. It’s time for the people to respond by voting ‘yes’ on the Protect Marriage Amendment. The Protect Marriage Arizona amendment does exactly what it is entitled to do, that is, protect the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. NAME, the National Association of Marriage Enhancement, encourages Arizonans to vote “Yes” on this amendment to protect, for future generations, the long-standing definition of marriage as one man and one woman. The traditional definition of marriage must be protected. Some would say marriage is a right; it is not -- it is a privilege that carries responsibilities. Society confers legal benefits to marriage, because marriage benefits society. Historically, healthy marriages have been foundational building blocks to any successful society -- Arizona included. This amendment to Arizona's constitution will affirm marriage’s traditional definition, ensuring it for future generations by prohibiting its redefinition by activist judges and others. Research indicates many benefits for children who are raised by a mother and father, including: they are more likely to succeed academically, are physically healthier, emotionally healthier, demonstrate less


* SOUTH DAKOTA *

South Dakota: 2006 Ballot Question Pamphlet Compiled by the Office of Secretary of State Chris Nelson

South Dakota: Constitutional Amendment C would amend the State Constitution to allow and recognize marriage only between a man and a woman. 2006 Ballot Question Pamphlet Compiled by the Office of Secretary of State Chris Nelson Constitutional Amendment C Title: An Amendment to Article XXI of the South Dakota Constitution, relating to marriage. Attorney General Explanation South Dakota statutes currently limit marriage to unions between a man and a woman. However, the State Constitution does not address marriage. Amendment C would amend the State Constitution to allow and recognize marriage only between a man and a woman. It would also prohibit the Legislature from allowing or recognizing civil unions, domestic partnerships or other quasi-marital relationships between two or more persons regardless of sex.

A vote “Yes” will change the Constitution.

A vote “No” will leave the Constitution as it is.


* SOUTH CAROLINA *

South Carolina State Elections Commission - Ballot Measures 2006

South Carolina: Constitutional Amendment 1 - Marriage

SUMMARY

This amendment provides that the institution of marriage in South Carolina consists only of the union between one man and one woman. No other domestic union is valid and legal. The State and its political subdivisions are prohibited from creating or recognizing any right or claim respecting any other domestic union, whatever it may be called, or from giving effect to any such right or benefit recognized in any other state or jurisdiction.

However, this amendment also makes clear it does not impair rights or benefits extended by this State, or its political subdivisions not arising from other domestic unions, nor does the amendment prohibit private parties from entering into contracts or other legal instruments. View Complete Text Information Provided by: South Carolina State Elections Commission

187 posted on 11/03/2006 4:34:37 AM PST by ElPatriota (Let's not forget, we are all still friends despite our differences)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
And of course, the MSM-Cheerleading team is already guiddy with excitment...thinking this will sink the Republicans. On the Contrary, Evangelicans are ready to charge! :)


188 posted on 11/03/2006 4:38:42 AM PST by ElPatriota (Let's not forget, we are all still friends despite our differences)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12

I THINK THE TRUTH IS THAT HE HAS A DRUG PROBLEM AND DID BUY FROM THIS GUY WHO IS JUST COINCIDENTALLY GAY...DRUG DEALER, GAY IT IS ALL A PART OF A DIRTY LIFESTYLE ...AND IF THEY HAVE MESSAGES OF SEX WHY NOT PLAY THESE?


189 posted on 11/03/2006 4:50:33 AM PST by rep-always
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tioga
"Sorry to sound preachy, but he is God's shepherd.....he should be held to higher standards."

Not preachy at all. You're right.

Jas 3:1 ¶ My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.

190 posted on 11/03/2006 4:51:28 AM PST by Salem (FREE REPUBLIC - Fighting to win within the Arena of the War of Ideas! So get in the fight!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: All
Ooopss Picture message correction

MSM Cheerleading team for Democrats!... that makes more sense...:)

191 posted on 11/03/2006 4:52:41 AM PST by ElPatriota (Let's not forget, we are all still friends despite our differences)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: rep-always

You buy crystal meth from a gay hooker, you have problems alone.

Meth is extremely addictive. How did he take it the first time to begin with exactly. It's not passed around the pews after all.


192 posted on 11/03/2006 4:58:27 AM PST by dogbyte12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12

Guilty!


193 posted on 11/03/2006 5:42:06 AM PST by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zook

Now that would be a tragedy. Another evangelist with fancy hair, no big deal.


194 posted on 11/03/2006 5:42:40 AM PST by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BurbankKarl

"Says he went to Oral Roberts..."

Or did he go to Roberts for Oral?


195 posted on 11/03/2006 5:48:57 AM PST by Maine For Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12

It looks like he didn't have any Gay relationship but he was buying Crystal Meth which is wickedly addicting. Very sad indeed. There are a lot of people who are addicted to crystal meth that you would not even expect.

http://www.9news.com/acm_news.aspx?OSGNAME=KUSA&IKOBJECTID=ac2e5ae3-0abe-421a-002e-f8d72bfbc01f&TEMPLATEID=0c76dce6-ac1f-02d8-0047-c589c01ca7bf

The voice mails for from a man who calls himself "Art."

It should be noted Haggard's middle name is Arthur.

The first voice message, left on August 4 at 2:18 p.m., says:

"Hi Mike, this is Art. Hey, I was just calling to see if we could get any more. Either $100 or $200 supply. And I could pick it up really anytime I could get it tomorrow or we could wait till next week sometime and so I also wanted to get your address. I could send you some money for inventory but that's probably not working, so if you have it then go ahead and get what you can and I may buzz up there later today, but I doubt your schedule would allow that unless you have some in the house. Okay, I'll check in with you later. Thanks a lot, bye."

The second voice message, left on August 4 at 5:10 p.m., says:

"Hi Mike, this is Art, I am here in Denver and sorry that I missed you. But as I said, if you want to go ahead and get the stuff, then that would be great. And I'll get it sometime next week or the week after or whenever. I will call though you early next week to see what's most convenient for you. Okay? Thanks a lot, bye."


196 posted on 11/03/2006 5:51:31 AM PST by truthandlife ("Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the LORD our God." (Ps 20:7))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12

My prayers are for his family and the members of his church whose faith is most certainly being tested right now.


197 posted on 11/03/2006 5:53:17 AM PST by piperpilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salem

i love the escort's comment in that he hoped Haggard could "keep his job and church"......he just thought he was hypocritical. right.

i do think that any pastor that has the gall to be leading a ministry and living some kind of immoral secret life SHOULD be exposed and defrocked. i just hope that if he comes back innocent of the charges, that gets published as widely as the accusations

i am really worried that we seem to have a trend that all you have to do is accuse and it ruins the person's life and job/ministry regardless of whether there is any truth to it at all. that story in Las Vegas seems to be similar.


198 posted on 11/03/2006 5:55:17 AM PST by applpie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Bahbah
What the hell is going on? Are gays infiltrating religion? Are they trying to high-jack religion like they high-jacked the rainbow and the word gay which once used to mean happy.

Actually, the rainbow suggests the inclusion of all walks of life. Quite the antithesis to the gay agenda which has no tolerance for anyone who questions their gay intentions.
199 posted on 11/03/2006 5:55:53 AM PST by SQUID
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Terriergal

Haggard is WELL beyond being merely seeker/purpose driven. Check out http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/answertotedhaggard.html and a letter I wrote to Promise Keepers a couple years ago when they put this wolf on their speaking platform: http://menofhonorministry.org/Discipleship/PK.htm


200 posted on 11/03/2006 5:58:49 AM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg (Test ALL things, hold to that which is True.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 281-295 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson