A Stitch in Haste

A gay New York socialite (I'm not quite sure what makes one a "socialite," but I'll blindly trust the MSM on this one) was, unsurprisingly, molested as a child by a Roman Catholic priest. He is, unsurprisingly, suing the Church for the terrible torts that were committed against him.

Nothing new in any of that.

Here's the twist: part of his damages claim is that the molestation "turned him gay" --

"I believe that my life would be very different now," said Enright, 51, dressed in a custom-made English suit and French cuffed shirt. "I'd probably be married, living in Greenwich, with four children in boarding school.
...
"I had a completely straight life in business, socially on Park Avenue and Fifth Avenue," he said, noting that he dated women in the 1980s. "Then there was the other world, which was slinking around in Greenwich Village gay bars, finding mates."

Let's take his claims at face value, if only for a moment. Assuming (falsely) that he was in fact, "turned gay," then what exactly are the compensable damages? How exactly is he less well off financially for being gay? Alternatively, what "pain and suffering" did he experience? (And remember, it would have to be the "pain and suffering" not of being gay in a discriminatory society but rather of being "turned gay.")

There is another huge defect in his lawsuit. The guy is now 51 years old. Shouldn't there be statute of limitations (or, for the lawyers, laches) defenses?

I do feel bad for him, as I feel bad for all victims of sex crimes. But I can't help wondering whether this middle-aged "socialite" is just seeking the limelight one last time (or, alternatively, just making some headline-grabbing noise to facilitate a quick shakedown settlement).

By all means sue for the molestation, if the action is not barred as untimely. But save the "turned gay" nonsense for your fellow "socialites."