« Senate Repeals HIV Travel Ban | Main | Reggie Bush (Thankfully) Goes Shirtless in Spain »

17 July 2008



Thank you for this information. It is important that we as human beings continue to see the frailties of other human beings. When they think they are above God's law of "do unto others...", they see that God is indeed watching all of us. Thanks.

Derrick from Philly

Men preachers love other men's dingdongs and booties. Everybody knows it. It's been that way since before the slave trade.

Carl CS

This is no surprise. As Derrick says, some of the messiest queens out there are the so-called straight preachers, especially these black mega-church pastors. It's no surprise daddy couldn't keep it on his pants and threw himself on another man. Now, where the good bishop made a mistake was throwing himself on another minister who apparently heard about his proclivities and didn't want to play along. He surprised them by confronting the church and asking for some moola.


Those who protest the loudest have the most to hide.


Pretty much Derrick. And I ain't gonna lie - my parents' pastor could get my bootie if he wanted it, with his fine self. He wouldn't have to assault me, lol.


Bill is absolutely right. You can't hold yourself better than others and think the rules and laws do not apply to you. But I am surprised more people are not speaking up and are outraged. This bishop isn't a notorious homophobe like some of the black preachers, but, he was living a double life.

M Mark

The CME Church in the South is very old school, black bourgeois. Homosexuality is very definitely not approved and this man was a presiding bishop in the church. He didn't try to change policy or make life any better for the gays who were in the closeted. He profited from his glass closet.

Michael O

It sounds like the bishop's 'homosexual tendencies' were an open secret amongst the Dallas CME black church community. No surprise.

Lang B.

The most AMUSING part is the Bishop claims" that is was "consensual." Ironic wording; CON & SENSUAL all in the same word. LOL

On so many levels this is wrong (married, preacher, anti gay, with another "saint" ). But who am I to speak? Pulling my thorns from my side as we speak. :)

Mel Smith

This needs to be all over CNN and other news stations.


Am I the only one who smells a fish here? Here's what the lawyer (Salvant) for Carter (the Bishop) said in the newspaper:

Salvant also said that the Dallas man has done nothing to bolster the accusations against Carter, that there are no medical records to support the claims and that there are no indications that the plaintiff fought Carter or immediately fled.

Now I know what the lawyer says is a one-sided view, but it got me thinking. If the "victim" was the "aggressor" and he had a "relationship" with the Bishop, as Carter contends, have y'all considered the possibility that this brotha is just a spurned lover out to make hell for a man in the public eye?

Now this doesn't take away from the hypocrisy of the Bishop's position, but frankly, I find it more distasteful that a bitter (and messy) man of the cloth may be cheapening the seriousness of sexual assault when he may not have experienced this. And the fact that he's suing not just Carter but the whole church makes me think he may be looking to profit from the publicity (ie they'll give him something to make the case go away and he'll have ruined the Bishop's life which may have been his primary objective anyway!!!!)

Michael O

Prodigal, I think you're wrong. There is a tendency among people to automatically assume anyone claiming harassment or discrimination wants a paycheck. I know from my own experience this is not true

The man who filed a complaint is also a minister in the same church. They are both men of God, and, apparently one of them is not telling the truth. Both of their lives are turned upside down by this incident. But given the position of the bishop, it's very likely the church leadership knew he was closeted and possibly have covered up previous incidents/lovers/etc. That's the purpose of a lawsuit because all of that will come out. It cannot be introduced in a criminal case.

Oliver W

Prodigal, yes, the defense attorney is taking a one-sided view and so are you. It's very interesting you're siding WITH the ANTI-GAY bishop who secretly has gay sex, consensual or otherwise, while bashing gays from the pulpit. Given that one simple fact, anything he says will be suspect. Why would you take the word of a liar and hypocrite?

There is no information to suggest these men were anything but acquainted in the church. And why not sue the CME church? This minister was essentially an employee of the CME church and the bishop was essentially his supervisor. That certainly sounds like more than enough criteria to me.


So Oliver W,

That woman who sued Kobe Bryant was short-changed. She should have gone after the Lakers, the NBA and David Stern. But as far as I recall she didn't.

But this is all beside the point. MY point was not really to side with anyone but to raise the possibility that this situation smells fishy from the perspective of the other man of the cloth (why is he even looking for a job and going to the house of a man he describes as having homosexual tendencies, anyway?).

If an anti-gay bishop gets his come-uppance for hypocritical behavior: fine. But the possibility that this vindication comes at the expense of a bitter lover rather than a real victim doesn't sit right with me. I'm saying, if this IS the case--if the "victim" is nothing more than a bitter lover-- then the greater disservice is to the idea of Sexual Assault that this individual is seemingly using for his own profit. Ethically, that stinks.


Michael O.

Similarly from experience, I have known a good man of the cloth whose church was swindled in this way (someone claiming sexual assault; settlement reached; shame etc. etc. etc.). But my comment here didn't arise from this other experience. Something doesn't seem right about the details of the story as it was told. Again, I'm not siding with anyone, but I am leaving my judgement open as to whether the Bishop is guilty of sexual assault. We'll all know when the details come out, won't we?

Oliver W

Prodigal, thanks for explaining yourself. You make some good points and are absolutely right. We don't know what happened, and, if they were involved in a relationship, it would cast a shadow. It is quite normal for ministers to work out of their homes. Having gay sex with fellow ministers during meetings is not normal behavior. At minimum, the bishop has massive credibility issues.

As far as Kobe Bryant, the young woman involved did not work for or with the Lakers. When illegal activity, harassment or discrimination happens in a work setting, then the company is most definitely liable. And, numerous lawsuits against the Catholic Church and various dioceses are the precedent for church-related abuse claims.

FWIW, I'm speaking out of personal experience, having been harassed and discriminated at a job some years ago and was forced to file complaints and a lawsuits. The boss was a serial harasser and the company was quite aware. It's not something I wanted to do and the monetary settlement, though nice at the time, did not help me regain my professional standing.


Me, you should be ashamed of yourself. Why are you gays tempting god-fearing straight men with your 'booty'!! This is how this happens, the bishop had a weak moment and was tempted with forbidden FRUIT.

I feel so sorry for the wives and the innocent children. As usual, the 'gay rights' bloggers ignore the innocent victims of the down low. SMH.


Oliver W.

I've got my popcorn popped, and I'm ready to watch the proceedings! (smile). Cheers.


Lawd Rod please spare us and ban WWJD from your site. She's contaminating the discussion with the worst kind of "my pastor is next in line to God and can do no wrong bullsh**" even when his di** gets caught in some gay booty"!

Now WWJD I've given you something to go to God in prayer for. May the Lord watch between me and thee while we're absent one from another. AMEN!


"Why are you gays tempting god-fearing straight men with your 'booty'!!"

WWJD: A gay man's "booty" cannot tempt a straight man. If a "straight" man is tempted by a gay man's booty, he isn't really straight.


Preach on, Darian and ELG!


"suspended after indicted"

Mel Smith

Guys, why isn't this on all the news channels?


Not surprising,most of those "ministers" that preach anti-gay sermons are on the down low.

Just  Wondering

I wonder if WWJD is being sarcastic about seducing straight men with "booty"---who talks like that,f or real!?!?!?!? ... it's just a thought.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Rod 2.0 Premium

Rod 2.0 Recommends

  • PrideDating.com, a Relationship-Oriented Gay Dating Site

    The largest gay roommate finder in America

    Rolex Watches


Your email address:

Powered by FeedBlitz

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    Search Rod2.0




    Blog powered by Typepad