The Recording Secretary of the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Church has been arrested for propositioning a male undercover officer for oral sex.
The Oklahoma City police were conducting a sting operation to respond to complaints about male prostitution. The Rev. Lonnie Latham, pastor of the South Tulsa Baptist Church, was arrested after he invited an undercover policeman back to his room at the Habana Inn for oral sex. The charge was not prostitution or solicitation but rather offering to engage in an act of lewdness.
At present there may be facts of the case that are not fully understood. However, it appears to me initially that without any suggestion of money taking place, the pastor was arrested for offering to engage in sex with another man.
This raises concerns about the legality of the arrest, or even of the sting. After Lawrence v. Texas was decided by the Supreme Court, it is no longer allowed for any state to set up laws that make it illegal to offer to have sex with another man. Other laws against prostitution or public acts of lewdness can remain if they are applied equally. As the sex was to take place in private (a hotel room) and since no money was offered (as best we can tell) this may turn out to be an illegal arrest.
Perhaps Oklahoma City may have some other facts or there may be exceptions to Lawrence of which I’m unaware. We will have to wait and see. However, I hope that Lambda Legal will recognize that Rev. Latham is as much a victim of discrimination – as he is a proponent of it – and will offer legal assistance.
This situation, though sad, does highlight one significant problem with the ex-gay movement. It’s reported that Latham also supported a Baptist Convention directive that encourages befriending homosexuals in an effort to persuade them to become heterosexual and reject their “sinful, destructive lifestyle.”
Latham, it would seem, has fallen victim to his own rhetoric. He no doubt believed his church’s teaching that there is no sexual orientation, just sin. That by rejecting or refusing a label of “homosexual” and by trying not to live a “homosexual lifestyle” he could overcome his sinful nature. It is both ironic and pathetic that his fight against his own intrinsic characteristics led him to a life that includes furtive sexual trysts in a sordid hotel and ultimately a criminal record.
It is clear that Latham behaved as a hypocrite in his religious life. It will be interesting to see if he relies on the protections that have been won by gay advocates to protect him legally. Without efforts (which have been adamantly opposed by the Southern Baptist Church) sex between men would still be illegal in Oklahoma and Rev. Latham could be facing a possible jail term. I do not yet know if Latham spoke out against Lawrence or other legislation on which he can now rely, but if so it would make him doubly a hypocrite.
I hope that through this, Rev. Latham can gain some introspection and take whatever steps are necessary to reconcile his sexual orientation (whatever it may be) with his life. However, based on the history of similar situations, it is likely that Latham will “repent” and disavow his “sin”. He will lose respect, his position of leadership in the denomination, and possibly his church. But most sad, he will probably lose his chance to start over and stop fighting himself. Let’s hope he doesn’t.
So far, though, the good reverend’s position has been more laughable than laudable. He claims:
As the Rev. Lonnie Latham, 59, left jail Wednesday, he said “I was set up. I was in the area pastoring to police.”
I think that perhaps Rev. Lonnie meant that he was ministering to the needs of his fellow man.
UPDATE 1/6/05
Correction: Rev. Latham was arrested in the parking lot of the Habana Inn. He had a room at a nearby hotel.
Update: This from the Tulsa World:
A pastor has resigned from his Tulsa church and from the executive committee of the Southern Baptist Convention after being arrested on charges that he propositioned a male plainclothes police officer.
Rev. Lonnie Latham, 59, who was senior pastor at South Tulsa Baptist Church, also resigned from the board of directors of Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma on Thursday, citing “personal reasons,” Heidi Wilburn, a spokeswoman for the state organization said Friday.
The Associated Baptist Press surprisingly has a very good article laying out the details of the case a clarifying some details:
Latham wrote a column in support of the SBC effort to convince gays to “accept Jesus Christ as their savior and reject their sinful, destructive lifestyle.”
This indicates that Latham’s hypocrisy was active rather than a passive agreement with his denomination.
“I was involved in a prayer ministry in that area, and I had a dialogue with police,” he said, according to the website of the Daily Oklahoman newspaper. “The officer made many suggestions.”
But, according to police officials, Latham made no mention of prayer, told the officer his name was “Luke,” and said he was from Dallas and worked frequently in Oklahoma City and Tulsa.
Very little has been made of the fact that Latham lied. This is, according to Scripture, every bit as much a moral failing as any issues surrounding adultery or sexuality. In fact, the prohibitions against lying vastly outnumber any mention of sexual sins of any nature. The commandment against lying actually made it into the big ten as written by God, as opposed to the law written by Moses.
According to the website, the church has an average Sunday-morning attendance of about 700 and has experienced significant growth since Latham became its pastor in 2002.
It is unfortunate that an obviously charismatic man with an ability to reach people has allowed his own internal struggle to now bring sorrow to himself, his family, and his church. How much better it would have been for Latham to be truthful to himself and those he cares for.
Oh, and also to the police and the news media.
This is a fascinating development, and it will be interesting to see how the whole thing pans out. As you point out, Timothy, there are some interesting complexities re: laws and civil protections and Latham’s own opposition to those rights. One small item: one of the news sources reported that Latham’s room was at a nearby Holiday Inn Express. If correct, he was cruising near the Habana and ended up in the parking lot there – but had booked a room somewhere else.
If it’s true, that the offer wasn’t for public sex and no money exchanging hands wasn’t discussed, then this is a serious legal issue, IMO, and a very disturbing one.
I ran across some old issues of ONE magazine from the 1950’s at the U of Arizona Library that described this situation as an everyday problem. Undercover cops hanging out on street corners and even inside of gay bars, arresting anybody who “propositioned” them. Think of it — even inside of a gay bar, nobody in those days could be certain who was gay and who was an undercover cop.
If it turns out to be true that this was not a solicitation for public sex (and that it was to take place in a hotel room) and no money exchanging hand was discussed, then I hope that Lambda Legal does take this case on, because to me it doesn’t appear to be much different from what I read about in the 1950’s.
I’m pretty sure however (at least on first blush) that this can’t be the whole story. Maybe I’m being naive, but I can’t believe that “offering to engage in an act of lewdness” for free and in a private hotel room is all that Rev. Latham was arrested for. At least I very seriously hope not. Otherwise everybody’s in trouble.
Oh come on, he was “pastoring to the police” and that’s all.
Cut the guy a break </sarcasm>
I realize the humor and irony that can be drawn from this, but I just can’t help feeling sorry for the guy. Perhaps it’s just my own memories of struggling with that secret (being gay) and the things it can make you do that resonate with anyone in such a circumstance. It can be a dark place, I hope he actually has some decent friends to get him through it.
David
Re: “Oh come on, he was “pastoring to the police” and that’s all.”
Yeah, that’s sure to be a classic.
Reminds me of the mayor of Columbus, Ohio, circa 1980, who was arrested for driving while drunk at 3:00 AM. His excuse? He wasn’t drunk. He was “inspecting the city.”
I was actually listening to Michaelangelo Signorelle’s show today and he thinks the gay community should rally behind this guys defense.
I’m inclined to agree.
I don’t agree with public cruising (it’s tacky in my opinion) and I don’t know the full facts of this case but if the reports are accurate and he was arrested for simply propositioning an officer to go back to his hotel room then the abuse of the law is horrible.
How many straight people proposition eachother every day?
If, in fact, he was nailed for offering money to the officer for prostitution then the law was properly used.
Here is a link that shows Latham explaining himself.
I, too, hope if injustice has been done that it will come to light. However, it’s hard to feel too much pity for the guy considering his flip arrogance on the video. I especially noted the part where he claims he was involved in ‘prayer ministry’ when he was arrested and the TV commentator dryly replies that the police report didn’t mention anything about prayer.
Get a grip. He was soliciting to commit adultery. I neither know nor care whether adultery is a crime in Oklahoma. But isn’t held in high esteem in several conservative Christian communities to commit adultery, particularly among ministers.
On another board a commenter noted that the best defense for this guy is to acknowledge he was suggesting private, non-prostitution sex, but it is highly unlikely he would agree to that. Interestingly, the Commonwealth of VA (otherwise known as the “hate state”) also continues to prosecute people for this “crime,” and there are Constitutional challenges to such arrests. VA, of course, argues they still have the right to arrest people for such “crimes”
Duh, I just realized there is no money involved here. Let me get this straight. Latham was arrested for asking another man to come back to his hotel and have sex? I acknowledge that “cruising” is pretty disparate behavior in general and that, since he is married, sex with anyone but his wife would be wrong for this guy but what is he being arrested for? Unless there is something significant being withheld, I’m with Michaelangelo on this one. I would have to seriously consider the possibility that the officer would not have followed through with the arrest if a nice looking woman had made that request. It’s not like he wanted to have sex in public, which is the only other reason I can imagine for such an arrest.
My Libertarian streak is all over this >:|
David
(We’re back!)From OK City code:
Well that’s all fine and dandy… but how the heck do those hicks arrange to breed?Do you make a non-specific, non-identifying, non-suggestive offer to some hottie in a bar (or, even your spouse) to return to a residential location — and only then make the offer of a leg-over?Or do you just go up and poke ’em, words unspoken.And SOLITARY is included??? Does this mean you cannot tell someone to “go f*** yourself”… or, make yourself an offer to got home for some self-abuse?Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Prudes. (I wish the same rule applied to religious solicitation!)
Oh, that won’t work. Try here… and step on in.
grantdale at January 6, 2006 01:59 AM
…but how the heck do those hicks arrange to breed?
Good question. I suspect that they arrange for “dates” at church and thereafter let “nature take its course.” Or hook up in straight bars–which might be places of public accommodation for civil rights purposes, but which are not public.
Reading the text of the ordinance, it appears that it was intended to be something of an “anti-harassment” ordinance, primarily, but not exclusively, to be used against people who might be soliciting sex acts on the public sidewalk or who wish to engage in sex acts in public restrooms (the restrooms at the Boston Public Library in Copley Square were rumored to be notorious for this).
I suspect, but cannot prove, that the good reverend would have several defenses available to him if he wished to take the case to trial. Entrapment and that the occurrence was not in a public place–presumably the parking lot was owned by the resort–immediately come to mind. It would take some research, but also an equal protection argument if it is shown that the police target gay bars and resorts and not straight ones.
But, assuming he was married, with children, his adulterous acts would be somewhat hypocritical in view of his position in the Southern Baptist Convention, and that is my only issue.
Interesting that this story hasn’t hit the Southern Baptist Convention’s website – which is full of ‘late-breaking’, ‘pro-family’, sensationalized ‘news’ stories. Of course they’re all about ‘other’ people.
Oh the irony and hypocrisy of it! Again! Seems to me these anecdotes are becoming a trend, evidence as it were. What do you think Raj?
Honest, its not schadenfreude.
Sorry, but it’s really hard to feel any pity for someone like that.
I can attempt to draw analogies: Native Americans feeling sorry for poor General Custer; Jews, Roma, or Gays feeling sorry for the poor Fuehrer, you get the idea.
My take on this is that you don’t get arrested for ministering to cops (and I am a former cop). Unless this policeman was a newcock rookie or on the take, it was not entrapment.
I suspect Latham was letting a part of his body other than his head (the one atop his shoulders) do the thinking. My advice to him: don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.
Phil said:
Jews, Roma, or Gays feeling sorry for the poor Fuehrer…
Wow, don’t you feel that comparison is a little out of perspective?
My take on this is that you don’t get arrested for ministering to cops…
I doubt he was, but do you get arrested for asking another adult (unbeknownst to you a cop) if he would like to come back to your hotel room for sex (with no compensation involved)? If so, someone needs to challenge the law.
David
I was actually listening to Michaelangelo Signorelle’s show today and he thinks the gay community should rally behind this guys defense.
I’m inclined to agree.
Me too. This is a speech issue. The only criminal thing I see here is the speech. What he was soliciting was not illegal…at least, not as far as I’ve been able to tell. The complaints that apparently led to the sting were about prostitution, but unless something is being left out of all the accounts I’m reading, there was no suggestion of money changing hands made before the arrest. So this is just about the bare (pardon) solicitation for sex…which is speech. You can’t criminalize speech.
Latham may not want to make a big case about it though. Be nice if it finally made him think about what he’s been doing to other people all this time though.
This is what the closet does to people. Back in the day I did volunteer work for a local gay community BBS System, and we would get these frantic calls from guys who had just been arrested on these prostitution and rest area sex stings who were frantic, and wanted to know if we could help them (there wasn’t much we could do except suggest a few lawyers) and almost to a man they were all married and deeply closeted.
And…yeah…Latham was working to keep gay folk ashamed and afraid and in the closet. But that doesn’t excuse this arrest. What was it for, if not simply for speech?
David, my comparison was somewhat out of perspective, but it was the only one I could think of. I still feel its valid despite its extremity.
During a sting such as this, the police sometimes get a bit overzealous, but they are there to respond to a problem that is creating a serious quality-of-life issue for the people who live around there. I do not agree with the law as it is written, but as a police officer, I would be required to enforce it to the fullest extent of the law, as distasteful as it is. Its important to remember that the real purpose of a sting like this is to deter others from engaging in the problem behavior. Again, I don’t agree with this law, doubt it would pass constitutional muster, but it is still on the books and has not yet been successfully challenged, for whatever reason.
If no compensation was discussed, the judge at the arraignment will likely throw the charges out.
I guess the thing that bothers me with this arrest is that if he had not been arrested himself, Latham would likely publicly applaud this type of law enforcement. The fact that he has resigned in the face of this speaks volumes.
Phil said:
I guess the thing that bothers me with this arrest is that if he had not been arrested himself, Latham would likely publicly applaud this type of law enforcement.
I can certainly understand your feelings there.
David
Phil at January 6, 2006 08:21 PM
I can attempt to draw analogies: Native Americans feeling sorry for poor General Custer; Jews, Roma, or Gays feeling sorry for the poor Fuehrer, you get the idea.
Actually, no, I don’t get the idea, because this makes no sense. What does “Jews, Roma (otherwise known as Gypsies) or Gays feeling sorry for the poor Fuehrer (Hitler)” have to do with anything relating to Latham?
According to a report I have read elsewhere, Latham was tailed by an undercover cop to the parking lot of the Habana resort, and that’s where the arrest occurred. Why was he tailed?
I’ll give you an analogy: Jimmy Swaggart. Remember his case? A competitor in the evangelical Pentacostal christian movement wanted to get back at him for smearing him, and he did so quite effectively. I suspect, but cannot prove that someone in the Southern Baptist Convention wanted to get rid of Latham, knew of his homosexual tendencies, and used that against him. Note that these “religious establishments” are basically political in nature, in that members of the establishments are vying for power within the various establishments, and it is highly likely that some opponent of Latham wanted to get rid of Latham to enhance his own power.