Dr. Jillian T. Weiss

Comment of the Week: John Gagnon

Filed By Dr. Jillian T. Weiss | March 06, 2011 7:00 PM | comments

Filed in: Marriage Equality, Site News
Tags: Indiana, Indiana legislature, Jud McMillin, Judson McMillin

From Bil's post "Indiana's Jud McMillin: A Tale of Glass Houses & Rocks," about rising Republican star Indiana state representative Judson (Jud) McMillin, who is vice chair of the Judiciary committee that oversaw passage of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, civil unions, and domestic partner benefits and who voted in favor of the marriage discrimination amendment twice. However, as Bil reveals, he is a man with a alleged secret past of misdeeds, allegations including theft, sexual harassment, sexually explicit photographs, prosecutorial misconduct and vehicular homicide.

Some commenters felt that exposing the legislator's misdeeds was not useful, that it was mere hypocrisy, which can be found in many places in government, and that it could be misconstrued as bullying Representative McMillin.

Projector John Gagnon hits the nail on the head when he says:

The public at large needs to know this. Its not just hypocrisy, it's scary. I don't think this is bullying. He is in public office. He deserves the scrutiny of any public official. It's the standard. I really wonder what happened there on that vehicular homicide case.

The power of public office can indeed be scary, and the power of holier-than-thou politicians with feet of clay has created a poisonous atmosphere for LGBT Hoosiers.

Projectors, what say you? Was this journalism at its finest, or is it unfair to Representative Judson McMillin?

Recent Entries Filed under Site News:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

What is more important: the right of one politician to privacy, or the right of many thousands of citizens to be aware of any and all information relevant to who they choose to vote for?

If there was just a single isolated allegation I might think that publicising it was vindictive - I know many people whose lives have been wrecked because of just such a single allegation. But Bil's post made it fairly clear that the incidents were not isolated, but rather there was a definite pattern to them and they took place over an extended period of time.

The allegations paint a pretty clear picture of the man's character, and that is one of the key things a voter will want to know when they go to the ballot box. Rather than being "unfair" to McMillin to publicise the information, I think it would be irresponsible and undemocratic to sit on it. After all, it isn't as if he was forced to go into politics: he had to make a conscious choice.

As the saying goes, "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

Good point, Tavdy. Where there's smoke, there's fire.

If his behavior were strictly personal, that would be one thing. But some of this guy's alleged misdeeds involved misconduct while in office, including taking advantage of his position to be a stalker.

That's important to the public and is definitely deserving of disclosure.

Yes, EdA, I think the fact that the allegations concern misuse of public office make this particularly serious. At the same time, I do think that those who slam the LGBT community for same-sex relationships under the standards of a very conservative religious morality should not be given a pass when they themselves ignore it.

I'd like to vote for "journalism," please!

I vote for journalism too, Bil! How do you dig this stuff up?

It would seem that as both a prosecutor and legislator McMillin has positioned himself as an arbiter of public morals. His own misdeeds are fair game.

If he dosen't care for this kind of scrutiny then he should seek employment in the private sector.

I'm with you, Leo. Throwing glass stones and all that.

Regan DuCasse | March 7, 2011 2:23 PM

Excellent article and comments. People who want to be in public office, MUST be held to standards of scrutiny and accountability because the ability to abuse the office and the people under it are too great.

I know that our media and government are used to great effect to endanger gay people, and laws are implemented to complicate gay lives, however no such thing is employed against those that have already endangered many and with tangible negative results
We need more and more msm journalists focused on such scrutiny, it's only fair and right, otherwise the damage to the integrity of public office and the safety of the public would be irreparable.

My question is, has there been any fallout for him whatsoever? I wonder if anyone down in that part of the state ever heard of Bilerico, or much cares what they have to say. Plus, I assume that this guy is in a good position to cover things up and deflect criticism, or he wouldn't still be in office.

I guess what I'd really like to know is, What did this accomplish?

John Gagon | March 8, 2011 1:58 AM

I thought about this a bit and I did a google search on "Judson McMillin" and "Jud McMillin". When I was originally looking for him, there were not these kinds of results:


On the first page, one can also see the original article now too.

Unfortunately, the Jud McMillin top link is still the personal website:


but 3 links down from there, is the same affidavit link. So awareness of his past seems to have picked up. Highlighted is the testimony of Crystal Stapleton's account of Jud's sexual/legal extortion attempts on her to force her in joining his attack on Gonzalez and manipulating her with empty promises of long term support and childcare. Anyone seeking to look him up will see this and discover the dirt and lies he's been hiding for so long.

While it may not remove him from office immediately, it will definitely raise awareness of his double standard enough to discredit his facade of moral superiority on marriage relationships and other similar social issues.

In other news, I was pleasantly surprised to have stumbled across my name here.

Thanks for your insightful comments, John. Your cogent thoughts are much appreciated here.

Thanks for the reply, John! :)