Sam stays

Here’s something that I believe is consistently true no matter what the context: Sex between two consenting adults is not a matter for public concern.

Therefore, I’m delighted that Portland Mayor Sam Adams has declined to step down from office over the recent fervor over his affair (and the subsequent public denial of the affair) with Beau Breedlove, a young man that Adams mentored at one point.

Not only should their relationship be a non-issue, it is completely absurd that the majority of Adams’ detractors are claiming that their outrage has to do with the fact that the mayor lied, rather than the fact that he had a sexual relationship with an 18-year-old man.

Mayor Adams did initially refute accusations of a sexual relationship with Breedlove during his run for office, but last week he came forward, publicly admitting to his involvement—and to being dishonest about it.

Why did he lie? Because he felt (and obviously, he was right) that the entire measure of his capability and moral worth would be judged by many people based on this relationship.

So, is the problem here really that the public’s trust has been betrayed? I see some incredible hypocrisy, or at the least some faulty logic in this as a reason for the vilification of Sam Adams. The people who are calling for the mayor to resign aren’t offended by his dishonesty—they’re actually upset with him for telling the truth.

Is there really anyone who can still claim to be scandalized by the idea of a politician that has lied (or exaggerated, or sidestepped, or dissembled or manipulated … you get the point, right?) in order to be elected? I know this is a cliché, but … really?

When people say that they have lost faith in Adam’s abilities to be a civic leader because he lied, I am skeptical. When he lied in the first place, he was elected. If he continued to lie, this would hardly be a topic of interest.

When Mayor Adams recanted and said that he had been involved in a sexual relationship with a much younger man, he was telling the truth—creating accountability for his actions, taking responsibility for presenting a false denial.

Aren’t these the very qualities the angry public claims to hold so dearly? An honest admission of wrongdoing should be better than not doing anything wrong in the first place, from a PR standpoint.

Here’s the truth: No one cares about the lie. People are titillated by the story, unwilling to admit that their prurient fascination has been aroused. Like buzzards hovering above an imminent corpse, public opinion and the mainstream media pretend to value truth, but in fact it is scandal, humiliation and lurid details that we’re honestly interested in.

It’s impossible to say if this story has captivated the community’s attention so intensely because we apply different standards to relationships between men, or to relationships where one person is significantly younger than the other.

My guess is that even the most liberal-minded of us may adopt more heteronormative and ageist attitudes regarding “legitimate” relationships that we’d like to admit.

I do know this, without a doubt: Politicians lie all the time—about important things, about things that are a matter of life and death at times. I know that when there is sex involved, suddenly everyone is very interested in his or her moral character. I know that politicians can do all sorts of awful things, but if they have sex with someone that we don’t deem suitable, then they are no longer fit to do their job.

Confusing our own need to be scandalized with a sense of decency, invoking the need for truth when in fact we are just nosy—maybe this is human nature. I’d like to think that it isn’t. I’d like to think that we are able to rise above creating a moral dilemma where none exists to hide the fact that we enjoy being shocked and scandalized. But that’s exactly what I’ve seen happen in Portland politics this last week.

Here’s why Sam Adams should not resign his position as mayor: He is still the mayor the majority of us voted for. He is the best person for the job, according to the system we use to determine such things—a democratic election.

Until such time that we appoint people to public office using a method determined by their private lives and sexual partners, then … shouldn’t we all just get over it?