Prof. George Alan Rekers has issued another public sidestep of the allegations that he hired a gay escort to provide nude sensual massage and assist with luggage throughout a 10-day trip to Europe. Since his original statement implied that he had deliberately hired the escort in order to evangelize him, Rekers’ subsequent rationalizations have become even more stupefying.

In an e-mail received this afternoon by Miami journalist Steve Rothaus of The Miami Herald, Rekers said:

If today’ news story in the Miami New Times is accurate, I have been advised to retain the services of a defamation attorney in this matter, because the fact is that I am not gay and never have been.

My travel assistant called me this afternoon earnestly asking me to clarify on my website that he worked for me as a travel companion and not as a prostitute. I completely agreed with my travel assistant that it is absolutely true that I hired him and he worked for me as a travel companion and not as a prostitute. I also read to him the first sentence that has been posted on my website for several days that says, “A recent article in an alternative newspaper cleverly gave false impressions of inappropriate behavior because of its misleading innuendo, incorrectly implying that Professor George Rekers used the Rentboy website to hire a prostitute to accompany him on a recent trip.”

Two days ago a professor friend of mine recommended that I ask my travel assistant to send me an email saying what happened on the trip so I could post a statement on what we agreed on. When I called my travel assistant to ask if he would write a statement to me, h asked me to send him questions to remind him of what topics about our trip he should write to me about, which I did on May 4.

Here are the four questions that I sent my travel assistant at his request two days ago, together with the answers we agreed on in our phone conversation this afternoon:

1. Did Dr. Rekers in fact hire you to lift my luggage when necessary as a travel assistant during the trip, because I cannot do so myself since I had surgery?

Together we agreed that I in fact hired him to lift luggage when necessary as a travel assistant during the trip, because I cannot do so himself since having surgery. We agreed that this is what my travel assistant agreed to do for pay prior to taking the trip.

2. Did you in fact lift my luggage during the trip each time it was necessary, or did Dr Rekers lift his own luggage during the trip?

We agreed that my travel assistant did in fact lift my luggage each time it was necessary, that I did not lift my luggage, and my travel assistant did all the lifting.

3. Did Dr. Rekers hire you as a prostitute for the trip?

We agreed that I hired him as a companion and to help with luggage, and that I did not hire him as a prostitute for any sexual purpose.

4. Did Dr. Rekers spend time explaining how the Christian faith is based in love to you during the trip?

We agreed that I explained the Christian faith to my travel assistant in conversations on several days during the trip.

Let’s start from the top:

Defamation? The Miami New Times article accurately quoted Rekers’ escort “Lucien” offering a detailed recollection of the vacation. Accurate quotation of someone does not qualify as defamation, nor do the recollections of one party to a personal dispute.

The e-mail: The fact that Rekers is attempting to filter the assistant’s contact with the public, and shape media questions about the scandal, compounds Rekers’ apparent lack of integrity and credibility. The four questions that Rekers poses to Lucien are entirely irrelevant to the scandal.

1. Rekers’ rationale for hiring someone is irrelevant — except that Rekers has changed his story.

a. Rekers used to form his hiring pool. No rationale can excuse Rekers use of a blatantly erotic gay escort service to shape the talent pool.

b. Rekers’ criteria for hiring are appalling. Instead of using a service such as to hire an someone with experience in travel disabilities at reasonable cost, Rekers apparently sought out down-on-their-luck sexy male teen-agers with no apparent qualifications other than Spanish-language fluency and physique.

2. Lucien’s assistance with luggage is irrelevant.

Lucien says he was hired primarily to provide sensual nude massage. Rekers’ contention that Lucien also was hired to carry luggage or perform other duties is an embarrassingly flimsy distraction.

3. Massage vs. “sexual purpose”

a. Rekers belongs to a milieu of people who convince themselves that massage is not sexual.

b. Rekers is resorting to a classic legalism that is the last resort of many a scoundrel: Rich people who have every intention of committing an act of illegality or ill repute make sure that their accomplices sign a pre-emptive disclaimer that there is any intent or plan to commit said act. Rekers seems to be post-emptively conspiring to create a pre-emptive disclaimer.

4. Rekers’ evangelical appeals are irrelevant.

The fact that Rekers talked about Jesus with Lucien is interesting only in the degree to which it exposes Rekers’ pious self-delusion about his motives for hiring the young man.

Throughout Rekers’ statements thus far, he fails to answer the pertinent questions; fails to quote Lucien directly; and exhibits a shallow false piety that is all too common among self-deluded and amoral Baptist preachers.

Worst of all, Rekers portrays himself as the victim — not his wife, not the rentboy, and not the thousands of people whom he has lied to, and lied about, over the past 30 years.

Rekers’ blatant homo- or bisexuality was not caused by lousy parents or bad gender role models. It was not cured by 30 years of teaching discredited “reparative therapy.” And Rekers has not, in the course of his 30-year career as a proponent of ex-gay therapy and antigay prejudice, cured anyone else.