Zombie decimates attempts to defend Kevin Jennings

Part I::  Kevin Jennings, as you recall, is Obama’s Safe Schools Czar. He’s the one who came under fire because (a) he boasts in his autobiography about giving a 15 year old gay boy safe sex advice regarding a sexual relationship with an adult man, as opposed to dealing with a statutory rape problem and possible child abuse, and (b) he is on the record as admiring Harry Hays, who was not just one of the first leader’s of the gay liberation movement, but was also deeply involved in promoting gay pedophilia.

The Jennings package — youth involvement; looking the other way at a situation that was, at minimum, statutory rape; and his veneration for an ardent, active, activist pedophile — should send warnings signals out to every person who wants to protect young people, whether straight or gay. Instead, the knee jerk forces supporting Obama have lined up behind Jennings, accusing conservatives of “smearing” him. (I’m still bewildered by the whole liberal argument that reporting actual facts about someone constitutes a “smear.”)

In the forefront of the pro-Jennings camp stands Media Matters. They’ve responded by advancing four major arguments (all of which I’ve read and heard in the MSM), which Zombie summarizes as follows:

1. When Kevin Jennings gave his speech praising Harry Hay, he didn’t know that Hay supported NAMBLA.

2. Kevin Jennings was praising the admirable side of Harry Hay, not the reprehensible side of Harry Hay.

3. None of the mainstream media’s obituaries of Harry Hay mentioned his NAMBLA connections, therefore he must not have been a bad guy after all.

4. Harry Hay once said he wasn’t an actual member of NAMBLA.

On their face, those defenses are silly:

1. Considering that Jennings’ whole life has been dedicated to his gayness (which distinguishes him from people who happen to prefer partnerships with members of the same sex, but who have interests that extend beyond their own sexuality), it’s almost ludicrous to believe that he was ignorant about an important part of Hays’ self-identity (namely, pedophilia).

2. There comes a point when someone’s reprehensible side is so extreme that simple decency means that you can no longer hold that person up as an example because of his less reprehensible side. To take extreme examples to make the point, we don’t use Hitler as a poster child for vegetarianism, Mao as a model for physical fitness through swimming, or Ted Bundy to make the point that clean-cut guys can get the girls. Because reputation matters, when a person’s evil outweighs his good, we toss him from the role model pedestal.

3. Well, we all know about the media’s in-depth reporting, so their silence on a politically incorrect subject is meaningless.

4. Even if he wasn’t a dues paying member of NAMBLA, Hay’s active, vocal support for pedophilia pretty much makes formal membership in the organization irrelevant.

Okay, that’s just off the top of my head. Zombie, of course, went one (one? a hundred!) better and generated an in-depth document with actual facts decimating the Media Matter’s arguments. By doing so, Zombie proves, not just that the arguments are foolish on their face (as I was able to), but that they are also factually ridiculous and don’t deserve to be part of the discourse regarding Jennings’ fitness for the job he now holds.

Please understand that my focus on Jennings has nothing to do with the fact that he is gay. Nor does it have to do with his laudable commitment to ensuring that homosexual youth are not maltreated in schools. Instead, it has everything to do with the fact that Jennings seems to feel way too comfortable with the notion of pedophilia. In other words, Jennings’ words and conduct indicate that he doesn’t feel the ordinary human revulsion that comes when normal people think about sex, homosexual or heterosexual, with children. Since the sexual integrity of our childrens’ bodies is ranks high on the list of every parent’s paramount concerns, it’s ludicrous to have such a man acting as a “Safe Schools Czar.”

Of course, the problem for Obama right now is that gays have become his own personal third rail. They’re mad at him for his broken promises and double talk about gay marriage and don’t ask/don’t tell. Although Jennings, perhaps inadvertently, represents an extreme and reprehensible fringe of the gay rights movement (pedophilia), the fact remains that he is (I believe) Obama’s highest ranking gay appoint. It’s not easy to get rid of someone like that in today’s political climate without a lot of egg left behind on the handsome Obama visage.

(See Noisy Room for more reaction to Zombie’s post.)

Part II: After I originally posted the above, I got into an email exchange with someone who suggested that my entire original post was predicated on the notion that there’s something wrong with being gay. On the Left, the fundamental belief that underlies the impulse to defend Jennings is the theory that, as loving parents, we should want to allow our children, as fulfilled human beings, to experience the full spectrum of human sexuality. The following is my response to that theory.

As a parent, of course, I’d have to say that there is a lot wrong with being gay. Gays have significantly higher rates of depression, drug abuse, alcoholism, suicide, and partner abuse. And that doesn’t even begin to touch upon the sexually transmitted diseases that are part and parcel of the promiscuity that characterizes the gay lifestyle. As to that, I learned more than I ever wanted to know about it when I worked in a virology lab in San Francisco back in 1981, right as AIDS first appeared on the scene. At that time, with about 20 reported cases, researchers thought it might just be an extreme response to the sexual transmitted diseases that were endemic in the gay community.

Whether gays’ vulnerability to so many miseries arises from the same biological wash that resulted in a differing sexual orientation, or traces itself to the hedonistic lifestyle that gay culture has assiduously promoted for 40+ years doesn’t matter. It’s a statistical fact, and it is true whether gays live in accepting communities (such as San Francisco, where I grew up), or in repressive communities. In other words, these problems can’t simply be attributed to external repression. The gay lifestyle is unhealthy, no matter where you live.

I’ve always said that, if one of my children turns out to be gay, I will love my child regardless — and I mean that.:  I will, however, be deeply unhappy, because it is such a tough road to hoe.:  I would not wish it on my child, not because I think my child would be evil or wrong or immoral, but just because I don’t want any of my children to go down on the path with potential for such a difficult life experience.:  To have someone in a position of power in the schools, therefore, who is wishing that lifestyle on my child, and who is working actively to promote it, is unbelievably disturbing.

(This post appeared earlier, in somewhat modified form, at Bookworm Room.)

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!