Gay Pagan Sex Offenders to Wed in Prison UPDATED

To quote Ace, “O Sweet Meteor of Death, why do you tarry?”:

The bride will don a traditional white veil. The groom will wear a Grim Reaper cloak.

The two men will step into a Wiccan circle to exchange vows and rings before being ushered back to their respective units at the Special Commitment Center, the state’s institution for sex offenders on McNeil Island.

Their relationship is unlike most.

When Hank Pollock and his transgender bride Rebecca [sic] Elmore tie the knot Thursday, they will become the first two residents to marry each other.

“Just because you’re in there, you don’t lose your civil rights,” said Chris Case, a spokeswoman for the Department of Social and Health Services, which operates the SCC. “Washington law says they can get married so they can get married.

“Basically this will not change their lives in any way except they will be legally married.”

The ceremony will cost the state nothing but will be rewarding for the couple.

It will be the first time they are allowed to kiss or hold hands.

Aww, isn’t that sweet. The charming couple will get to kiss and hold hands. See, they’re just like us!:

Elmore was already there after pleading guilty in 1995 in Clark County to second-degree kidnapping and second-degree assault with sexual motivation. When Elmore petitioned to be released in 1999, the state Attorney General’s Office persuaded the judge to deny it based on Elmore’s “sexually-motivated cannibalistic fantasies.”

In 2002, Elmore changed his first name from Keith to Rebecca as part of his transgender transformation.

Pollock, who changed his name from Andrew Drescher in 2002, was convicted of five counts of sex crimes against children in Kitsap and Thurston counties from 1987 to 1993. He was committed to the SCC for being a repeat sex offender. 

What?

I….

But-

Really?

A transvestite child rapist and a rapist/kidnapper with cannibalistic fantasies are allowed to get married in an occult ceremony  in a state facility?

Because … why? Because we’ve gone totally insane? Because a facility for sexually violent predators is the perfect place to indulge their sexual perversions and delusions?

Is there any ending of this scenario that doesn’t involve a girl in a hole being told to put the lotion on her skin?

One of the nasty little pervs explains what it’s really all about at the end:

“We’re ready to stand up and start working on our rights as a married couple.”

And there you have it: deviants with too much time on their hands and wicked minds looking to game the system a little more.

Me? I’m left wondering what kind of happy endings their victims got.

Update: There’s a ranty bit of nonsense in the combox that echoes this idea of the “rights” of these prisoners. Let’s be clear: prisoners do surrender rights, starting with the right to freedom, the right to vote, the right to privacy, and the protection from search and seizure. It’s not like you enter prison with a full list of rights that you share with those who are free.  Why should a brand new “right” like gay “marriage” be gifted to them without question?

About Thomas L. McDonald

Thomas L. McDonald writes about technology, theology, history, games, and shiny things. Details of his rather uneventful life as a professional writer and magazine editor can be found in the About tab.

  • Tom

    What a lovely story. So are they gay if one is a male-to-female transsexual who has committed sexual abuse against multiple children?

    I love how the article keeps the negativity to a minimum because they’re gay/transsexual/whatever pagans, even though one’s a would-be cannibal and the other’s a pedophile/ephebophile. Such lovely stuff, really.

  • http://www.wildhunt.org/blog/ Jason Pitzl-Waters

    So, what are you advocating for here? That inmates shouldn’t be allowed to marry? That inmates convicted of horrible sex crimes shouldn’t be allowed to marry? That inmates should be allowed to marry, but not the ones convicted of sex crimes? That inmates can marry, but only if it’s a marriage between a woman and a man (there’s a long history of jailhouse marriages, as you know)? That inmates can marry, but only if it’s a Christian marriage?

    No matter which avenue you start traveling down here, the list of things that infringe on basic constitutional rights begins. The courts have established that even the worst prisoners have some basic constitutional protections and rights. That may not be popular, but it has protected our society from turning prisons into torture dungeons (unless you’re advocating for the gulag scenario, maybe that’s some new Catholic thing that I haven’t heard of).

    Really, what this story represents is a safe opportunity to play “slippery slope” and wax on about the horrors of secular humanism, same-sex marriage, and I suppose the constitutional coddling of prisoners. After all, who is going to fight for the constitutional rights of convicted monsters? Nobody! The fact that they had a same-sex Pagan ceremony is just a super-bonus. Right?

    Finally, about the “happy endings of their victims.” Are you advocating the death penalty for them (again, I thought Catholics were agains that)? Where is the line between justice and vengeance? How miserable are human beings in prison supposed to be? Who shall decide that? You? The victims? Again, the reason prisoners have basic constitutional rights is so we don’t enter into the scenario of “an eye for an eye.”

  • Dale

    Tom, I think you are correct that Rebecca likely identifies as a male-to-female transsexual. However, it seems she is still officially classified as a man, since the News Tribune article mentions she had to change the wording of the marriage application to suit a same-sex marriage. And the article quotes her husband as saying this was his first gay relationship.

    As far as I can tell, Rebecca changed her name after she was confined, so she would have had no opportunity to proceed further in the sex-change process.

  • Dale

    Jason, I think our popular culture views sex offenders as inhuman monsters, particularly if children are involved. It is hard to have compassion for sex offenders. But we need to be careful that we retain our respect for their inherent human dignity, and to not lose sight of it.

  • http://www.godandthemachine.com/ Thomas L. McDonald

    Save the rants for your own page, I’m not interested.

    To answer the only actual question above: I would start with “same sex marriage is impossible,” but that ship has already sailed in our insane society, so let’s start with “incarcerated people can’t marry each other” and take it from there. Really, has common sense broken down so much that people can’t see that as a bad thing?

    Sexual predators are always sexual predators. Period. They cannot be “cured.” Having two team up in a make believe marriage is less than ideal, no?

  • Guest

    The list of bitter ironies in your response… anyway, no worries mate, I will leave you and trouble your cocoon no longer.

  • http://www.godandthemachine.com/ Thomas L. McDonald

    I don’t even know that means, but thanks for leaving.

  • Thinkling

    This has to be the seeds (sorry) of a reality show.

  • kcthomas

    Why can’t they declare whether have penis or vagina. Let people know the fact for facility of correct recognition

  • Dale

    KCThomas, if someone claims to be a woman or a man and their driver’s license says the opposite, questions would be raised.

    According to an ACLU webpage, procedures exist for allowing a physician to write a letter which testifies to a person’s genitalia. This letter is required if someone wishes to change the gender marker on their driver’s license, birth certificate, Social Security record etc

  • kcthomas

    Most of these confusion exists in the most progressive America and some European countries. They seem to be ignorant of their own sexual identity. We are sad about these rich modern and rational populace

  • FW Ken

    Sex is a legal status established by your birth certificate. Like your name, it can be changed by court order, at least in Texas.

  • R. Matthews

    Ok -
    You miss an important distinction the “prison” is not in fact a prison, It’s a civil commitment facility. You may say “so what”. But the inmates there have the satus of paitint and might eventually get released if the medical staff and courts ruke that they are no longer a danger to themselves and others. This may like legal hairspliting to you but it means that the state can’t surpress as many rights as it can with prisoners. So our resident troll does have a point, but he looses it with the wohle being a bigot thing

  • Holly O’Brien

    While I do not condone sexual crimes of any sort, I am quite concerned with the hateful tone of this Patheos post. It sounds as if Mr. McDonald feels that he is able to decide who should be afforded what rights in our country. Mr. McDonald, are you prepared to be such a moral beacon for the US? It is quite a
    large job.

    Yes, the crimes both inmates committed are appalling, but no, that doesn’t make them inhuman. In our country we hold the belief that all humans should be treated equally, and that means that we need to allow people convicted of horrible crimes of pursuing their own path to peace.

    And whom does it hurt for these two inmates to marry? Will it injure their victims further? Will it force people in committed relationships to abandon their partners? Will it convince other young men to become pedophiles and so that they can enter the glamour life of living in a correctional institution? Will it sway good Christians from abandoning their faith and join a Pagan coven? Unlikely.

    It was a simple ceremony between two consenting adults. The media attention that Mr. McDonald and others helped it achieve may have been what is wrong with this situation. It could be that the two inmates can get a thrill from making other people uncomfortable, and that by bringing up this case that that has been
    perpetuated.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X