Gay Patriot Header Image

Kevin Jennings Knew of Harry Hay’s NAMBLA Connections?

Posted by Average Gay Joe at 9:45 am - October 15, 2009.
Filed under: Gay America,Political Scandals

Zomblog presents a very convincing case that Jennings may indeed have known about Hays’ support for NAMBLA when he publically praised the man years ago. Until now I’ve seen most of the criticism directed at Jennings as being sketchy and partisan in nature. While this too may be influenced somewhat by politics, there is persuasive evidence to back up the accusation. I would encourage everyone to read this post for yourselves.

If it is true that Jennings knew of Hays’ connections to NAMBLA and ignored them when he praised the man, that is indeed a legitimate issue of concern and one which rightly calls his appointment in the Obama Administration into question. Jennings’ refusal to comment on the growing controversy is unwise and will only cause it to fester even more. If there is one thing that the Roman Polanski arrest has shown us it is that outrage and disgust over child molestation/rape transcends political lines which in the case of Polanski caused a very-noticeable rift on this issue between some liberal elites and liberal rank-and-file. Jennings himself isn’t a child molester/rapist and Hays too might not have been. Yet Jennings may have knowingly and publically praised a supporter of child molestation/rape.

This charge to me is the most damaging of all the ones I’ve seen made online about Jennings. I doubt I’m wrong in saying that like most Americans, I cannot and will not support anyone in a position of public trust who is either in favor of groups like NAMBLA or knowingly praises those who are. It doesn’t matter to me what their political affliation is. Partisan wrangling means squat when the lives and welfare of children are involved. Jennings owes the American public an immmediate explanation or he failing this, perhaps even depending upon what he says in his defense, he should definitely lose his job.

— John (Average Gay Joe)

Share

33 Comments

  1. Among all the other evidence that Zombie presents, this June 1994 “Spirit of Stonewall” press release signed (and probably written) by Harry Hay in defense of NAMBLA is especially interesting as a primary document. Just check out all the juicy left-wing tropes in this paragraph:

    NAMBLA was spawned by the gay community and has been in every major gay and lesbian march. It has demonstrated in solidarity with people with AIDS, and for lesbians in custody cases. NAMBLA takes progressive positions on U.S. intervention in Central America, the military draft, reproductive rights, the death penalty, corporal punishment and racism. NAMBLA publicly condemns the exploitation of children, including genuine sexual abuse. NAMBLA believes the interests of young people demand not paternalistic protection, but empowerment to make real choices.

    Elsewhere in the press release, Hay goes crazy with the scare quotes:

    Unless we return to the principles of Stonewall, the fate of NAMBLA today may be the fate of other “different” and “controversial” causes tomorrow.

    And:

    Just as unions, the civil rights and peace movements were pressured to cleanse themselves of suspected “communists,” the lesbian/gay movement is now expected to rid itself of social misfits, the vulnerable pederasts first of all.

    (Hay himself was, of course, quite far from being a “suspected” “communist”.)

    Comment by Throbert McGee — October 15, 2009 @ 10:21 am - October 15, 2009

  2. Whoops — here’s the link to that press release, this time using tinyURL. And here’s the direct URL to copy-and-paste:

    http://www.qrd.org/qrd/orgs/NAMBLA/spirit.of.stonewall

    Comment by Throbert McGee — October 15, 2009 @ 10:25 am - October 15, 2009

  3. Harry Hay’s connection to NAMBLA and the American Communist Party were widely-known the gay community decades ago, and even in the late 70’s were cited as setting-back the gay movement by decades by created the meme of homosexual = communist. In large-part that doomed the Matachine Society activities in the 50’s…too-many of it’s activists were known or suspected Communists.

    And NAMBLA was a pariah group and anathema from the very start…especially in gay social-circles more-so than even in the gay lib/civil rights arena. It was the existance of NAMBLA that fueled much of the homophobia against gay male teachers in the historic California Gay Teachers proposition-battle. ( My apoligies for not remembering it’s Prop-number. )

    Back then, one of the advantages of the gay bar and the bathhouses (before AIDS)was the underage kids couldn’t get in, and the bouncers and counter-people were quite rigorous and strict about checking ID’s for age. With an 18-yo drinking-age, fewer college guys needed fake ID’s so there wasn’t the sophisicated cottage-industry of faking IDs then either.

    Jennings may have been a teacher, but he didn’t learn from history.

    Comment by Ted B. — October 15, 2009 @ 11:51 am - October 15, 2009

  4. Kevin Jennings is a career gay activist and “scholar.” For him not to know that Harry Hay was connected to NAMBLA is about as plausible as Rush Limbaugh not knowing that Mean Joe Greene played for the Pittsburgh Steelers.

    Comment by V the K — October 15, 2009 @ 11:54 am - October 15, 2009

  5. I was hoping you wouldn’t get into this, Joe, but I’ll try to rebuke the main point of the zombieblog post.

    The whole point is contingent on whether or not Kevin Jennings knew about Harry Hay’s NAMBLA associations. The main point they use to support that he did and still praised the man (since they don’t have any actual evidence, and Jennings himself never uttered any words in praise) was that in the same book that lists Hay’s NAMBLA connections, Jennings lifted a chapter to put in another compilation. Therefore, according to you and others, he must have read the whole book, knew about Harry Hay’s NAMBLA connections and is therefore culpable to swear it off.

    This basically shows a complete ignorance on the part of anyone of how publishing works. The fact that portions or a chapter of one book were used in another is not proof that he had knowledge or condoned every part of the other. It’s very common practice that an editor or publisher knew of Jennings need for material and sent him a chapter as an example so it could be included, and they could make money. Or Jennings may have come across it merely as a chapter. I’ve seen many instances where only a chapter of a book that is relevant is read or needed. Just the other day I gave a book on meth to a friend of mine, assuming and only recommending the chapter particular to gay men. If he did something with that, or Jennings was recommended it, it doesn’t really point to any proof he read the whole book, knew what it included, or was praising sex with children by praising, very specifically in his speech I might add, only Hay’s involvement in the gay movement.

    Do you really think he should lose his job? I think the authors of this blog really need to take a step back on this one. What do you really have against the man? The “child sex” story has been completely debunked, and you now look like birthers chasing after vague recollections of a teacher 21 years ago. Now the best you have on him is he HAD to have read the whole book cause he reproduced a chapter of it. Again, complete lack of knowledge about anything regarding publishing, especially compilation publishing and the process it goes through. But that’s your smoking gun, demanding his head. The inability of you guys to let this go because of some stereotype you think this reinforces about gays and their condoning sex with minors is getting sick.

    Honestly, is this the standard you want to hold people too? Once he might have read a book once about a guy who he didn’t agree with but who did fight for gay rights, specifically praised ONLY the part about gay rights, and explicitly said so, but he might have read something that one time… so he should lose his job!!! That’s like saying everyone who ever liked Thriller is supporting child molestation. That’s your standard of proof, loose association based on things you can’t prove but think he might have known. I don’t think Jennings should condone anything, since he’ll spend his entire career doing condemnations since that’s your standard of evidence, loose associations and misstatements about his memory of the 80s.

    Also, could you be objective about how this is making this blog look when multiple authors are now on board? This is what, a half dozen posts on this subject? Any signs of discussion are met with scarlet brands of child molester if you don’t agree with the blog authors. This issue is going no where, and you will see no apology or action taken regarding it. He has the support of the White House, the major media, and every major educational association. Stop chasing shadows that lead nowhere because they vaguely fit your preconceived worldview of gays all wanting to fuck kids. Any objective, reasonable person could see this is a waste of your time and just makes you out to look crazy enough to lose credibility when actual issues worth commentary come forth.

    Usually with you Joe, but don’t climb on the dog pile on this one.

    Comment by Tim — October 15, 2009 @ 12:50 pm - October 15, 2009

  6. NAMBLA believes the interests of young people demand not paternalistic protection, but empowerment to make real choices.

    I seem to recall that Hillary tried to push the same thing.

    and Jennings himself never uttered any words in praise

    Sorta like how Chairman Obama could attend Rev. Wright’s church for 20 years and never heard a damn thing he said? Or maybe it’s like palling around with a known terrorist but claiming it’s ok because that was a long time ago?

    Or is it like liberals supporting our troops by diverting funds to pet projects????

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 15, 2009 @ 1:14 pm - October 15, 2009

  7. Tim’s nice enough to come back (again) and come up with nice theories to explain how this ‘gay scholar’ could have missed the little NAMBLA fact.

    This is the same Tim who’s showed he’s fine with adults having sex with 15 year olds, mind you.

    It also ignores the point. We can come up with all the theories we want (the sending the book chapter is a new and novel, er chapter theory). The fact is in the face of all this evidence in his own words he’s staying silent. So far, that’s the most damning of all.

    Comment by The_Livewire — October 15, 2009 @ 1:27 pm - October 15, 2009

  8. The “child sex” story has been completely debunked

    No, it hasn’t. What has happened is the following:

    — Jennings is claiming that “Brewster” was 16 — after repeating for the past 21 years on multiple occasions that “Brewster” and several other boys he similarly “counseled” were 15.

    — “Brewster” has suddenly resurfaced stating that he was 16 and never had any sex — after Jennnings has repeated for the past 21 years on multiple occasions that “Brewster” and several other boys he similarly “counseled” were 15 and having sex with multiple adults.

    — Media Matters, an organization paid by Barack Obama and numerous supporters with the explicit purpose of pushing liberal propaganda and a history of supporting the forging of documents to attack conservatives, has published a letter from a lawyer claiming that “Brewster” was 16 — that lawyer being Jennings’s own lawyer.

    — Media Matters, an organization paid by Barack Obama and numerous supporters with the explicit purpose of pushing liberal propaganda and a history of supporting the forging of documents to attack conservatives, has published what they allege to be “Brewster’s” driver’s license — which lacks a name, date of issuance, number, signature, photograph, and anything else that could identify it as a valid license issued to an actual person.

    In short:

    — Either Jennings is lying or “Brewster” is.

    — Media Matters is unable and unwilling to allow third-party verification of the “evidence” that they have brought forward and, with a history of supporting the forgery of documents, is insisting that we should “trust them”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 15, 2009 @ 1:55 pm - October 15, 2009

  9. Also, could you be objective about how this is making this blog look when multiple authors are now on board?

    Right. We now have four different authors making it clear that being gay does not require you to support and endorse pedophiles, that gay public officials should not be able to hide behind their sexual orientation, and that gay public officials who are so quick to praise and support pedophiles and sex with underage children owe an explanation of why they are doing so.

    Granted, if you want to be popular in the gay community and be considered an “authentic” gay, this is not the route to go. However, as I recall, one of the overarching goals of this blog is to demonstrate to the 99% of the world that aren’t gay leftists that there’s no requirement that you support leftist stupidity in order to be gay.

    Your problem, Tim, is that you simply aren’t capable of moving beyond your minority status. You have stated, as Livewire points out, that you see nothing wrong with children under the age of consent having sex with adults. How can you be expected to enforce the law when you refuse to believe in it? Your sexual orientation makes you unfit to serve in any form of law enforcement because you are unable to enforce the laws equally.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 15, 2009 @ 2:01 pm - October 15, 2009

  10. I only responded to this post because I have respect for what Joe normally posts and wanted to specifically engage HIM on the points he’s made.

    I got tired of trying to have reasoned discussion when every point I make is just responded to with child molestor child molestor child molestor. I can have better adult discussions with a brick wall than NDK, ILC, LW and the rest of the second rate small minded bigots who troll this site nowadays. Nice link accusing me of being a pedo, but make sure you’re URL is correct.

    NDK. Could you kindly provide evidence of MM forging documents? Can you provide proof of Barack Obama personally giving them any money? I wouldn’t release personal information beyond what is necessary to prove a crime was not committed either. Unless you have evidence of any sort of crime, quit shouting like a hysterical old woman. You’re turning into the new birthers, and preventing any sort of productive or meaningful dialogue. Again, your level of proof is unattainable. Apparently you want the original footage of this man being born from his mom’s vagina, God holding a calendar and a watch, and even then I’m sure it would be some forgery by Barack Obama’s magical movie editing abilities…

    Again, show proof he was advocating Hay’s NAMBLA ideals? I noticed no one managed to even go after that point, just scream child molestor for the 50th time with a bad link. As far as his keeping silent on the issue, I can see very well why he’s not apologizing. It’s the same reason I don’t come on here anymore. If you choose to wrestle pigs you’re going to get dirty. And most of the time the pig likes it.

    Comment by Tim — October 15, 2009 @ 2:40 pm - October 15, 2009

  11. Sorry, Tim. You keep saying you go away, but you keep coming back.

    We’re too old for you.

    “NDK and the rest, if you really can’t see a difference between a 15 yr old engaging in consensual sex and a much younger child being molested, you need to adjust your moral compass. ”

    So Tim thinks we need our compasses adjusted because adults having sex with 15 year olds is fine.

    Comment by The_Livewire — October 15, 2009 @ 2:52 pm - October 15, 2009

  12. NDK. Could you kindly provide evidence of MM forging documents?

    Perhaps you should ask me to provide evidence relative to what I actually said.

    Media Matters, an organization paid by Barack Obama and numerous supporters with the explicit purpose of pushing liberal propaganda and a history of supporting the forging of documents to attack conservatives

    And for that, with pleasure.

    I wouldn’t release personal information beyond what is necessary to prove a crime was not committed either.

    So according to a law enforcement expert such as yourself, who claims to have worked in police stations, all that is required to prove that you did not have sex with a child is to produce, well after the fact, a driver’s license that shows a birth date — without any reference on said license as to whose it is.

    In that case, you should probably get to work on freeing the innumerable child molesters who could have proved they committed no crime by providing a driver’s license with a sufficient birth date on it as “proof” that the child they molested was of age, regardless of whose it was, how it was numbered, how it was signed, or even if the photo doesn’t match the person’s who they claim it was.

    You continue to demonstrate, Tim, why gays like yourself should NOT be given any form of employment protection; your sexual orientation makes it impossible to do your job or to even follow basic laws. There is no way people who cannot report child molestation just because a gay person is doing it are fit to be teachers.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 15, 2009 @ 3:29 pm - October 15, 2009

  13. “NDK and the rest, if you really can’t see a difference between a 15 yr old engaging in consensual sex and a much younger child being molested, you need to adjust your moral compass. ”

    So Tim thinks we need our compasses adjusted because adults having sex with 15 year olds is fine.

    Did I ever say it was fine? Once? Again, par for the course, I never said that. I said that a rational person could distinguish a DIFFERENCE between a teenager seeking out consensual sex and the rape of a small child. Just as people can see the difference between crimes like speeding, and say murder. Or smoking pot and rape. I also provided documentation showing such hard line attitudes towards these laws were making 14 yr old boys who take pictures of their dicks on their cell phones equivalent with violent rapists, sexual offenders and child predators. See, my argument was reasoned, and yours was drawing your own conclusion, despite my language being clearly NOT in favor of allowing sex with teens, and yet that’s your rebuttal.

    NDK. That link purely proves MM was wrong in it’s initial analysis of the Bush docs. They forged NOTHING. It shows no financial connection between Obama and MM. Show me one instance of Media Matters forging documents. Show me once instance of BO giving money to them. Quit shooting your mouth off with only vague association and no standards of evidence for your argument.

    NDK, as a person with a law enforcement background, I do know that people involved in such sensitive subjects don’t need every minute detail of their life broadcast to the world just because you need some sick curiousity of yours fulfilled concerning something you have nothing to do with. Showing ANY evidence of this man’s age is honorable considering there was no crime comitted. In MANY cases only small amounts of evidence are needed, and the rest of the details are withheld to protect the privacy and well being of the man in question. Why don’t you go down to the local court house and try to get details of any rape victim’s life? Most are shown only to relevant parties like a judge/attorney/cop etc for good reason!

    I continue to demonstrate why I should not have any form of employment protection??? My sexual orientation makes it impossible to do my job or follow basic laws??? You are the one who can’t even produce one shred of evidence of a crime, provide links that show no evidence of forgery or financial connection which you claim, and just scream child molester at anyone who beats you intellectually in an argument over and over until they give up and go away. AND I’M THE ONE WHO SHOULD NOT HAVE A JOB OR CAN’T FOLLOW LAWS OR SHOULD BE AROUND CHILDREN???

    THIS IS WHY I DON’T COME TO THIS SITE ANYMORE, THERE ARE NOT REASONABLE ADULTS HERE TO HAVE ANY SORT OF CONVERSATION WITH.

    Comment by Tim — October 15, 2009 @ 4:41 pm - October 15, 2009

  14. Tim: I would suggest that you read the post at Zomblog again. The case for Jennings having known about Hays’ part is very convincing. Even if I were to accept the excuse that you give here, that doesn’t speak to the fact that Jennings was in a position at the time where he should have known. Jennings was known to be an activist and gay history scholar at the time he praised Hays. It stretches credulity just a tad too much to think that he didn’t know anything about Hays’ NAMBLA connections. Given that his public praise for Hays was expressed in a speech 3 years after the 1994 book he participated in, that only adds to this. Finally, by his continued silence on this matter, while partisan attack dogs “respond” for him, he is behaving like corrupt politicians on both sides when they are caught. No, if Jennings were straight and this had been about race, for example, he would have been tossed under the bus far sooner than this latest revelation. Before this looked like nothing more than a partisan witch hunt to me built squarely on slander and the most tenuous of connections, which is why I wasn’t buying any of this even though I oppose the man politically myself. Yet this charge is the most damning IMO and has every appearance of having more substance behind it. So yes, if it is true that he knew of Hays’ connections to NAMBLA, which seems to me that he did, then he should indeed lose his job.

    Comment by John — October 15, 2009 @ 4:43 pm - October 15, 2009

  15. John,

    Thanks for your response. It’s so refreshing to not have a shouting match.

    I don’t really accept your argument to just go read the post again. Again, the crux of the argument is that he HAD to have known about Hay’s NAMBLA involvement because the anthology he was involved in compiling pulled a chapter from another Hay’s book that made a mention of Hay’s NAMBLA involvement. Can we agree on that much? Is that enough for you to have damning evidence and he should lose his job? You chose not to address this.

    Here’s why I disagree: When many books that are compilations are published, there is conversation among writers and editors and make it known they are seeking contributions or material. Possibly the editor, writer, or someone involved with the Hay’s book saw they could make additional royalties and money by having a chapter about Hay’s activism included. They probably submitted this CHAPTER which they saw relevant and probably submitted or suggested it and it got in the book. Jennings was VERY CLEAR in his explanation of WHY he was praising Hay’s at the time. Read the quote, he points out his perseverance in getting people to join his cause at the initial points of gay activism.

    Your assumption is that because he had this one chapter in an anthology, he should have read everything else about the man and should know his entire life history and never put it in or praised him. It’s a very shaky, unrealistic account to hold anyone to. I like Ayn Rand’s writing. There is a violent rape described in one of her books. If I read “Atlas Shrugged” should I (any therefore, any Rand admirers) be held to never praise her because she advocates raping women??? NO! All I can see in this case is a very thinly extrapolated case of association that you have no evidence of. Just a “maybe” he “might” have known about it, and if maybe on the off chance he did … C’mon. You want a man’s job for that? Considering all the other work he’s done?

    Maybe you can convince me. Show me what more they have about him knowing about Hay’s. Show me what PROOF you have. Don’t just refer me back to the link. I’ve read it. I’ve even summarized MY view of the evidence and refuted it. Show me where I’m wrong. Don’t just tell me I’m wrong and to read it over. We’re adults here. Address my points, or reinforce your case stating why this apparent association of he should have known is stronger or provide more evidence. But don’t just tell me I’m wrong and to read it again. Let’s have a dialogue here.

    Comment by Tim — October 15, 2009 @ 5:10 pm - October 15, 2009

  16. Tim, why don’t you present your rebuttal over on Zombietime?

    Comment by Throbert McGee — October 15, 2009 @ 5:59 pm - October 15, 2009

  17. THIS IS WHY I DON’T COME TO THIS SITE ANYMORE, THERE ARE NOT REASONABLE ADULTS HERE TO HAVE ANY SORT OF CONVERSATION WITH.

    How about this:

    Since you don’t want to be called a pedo, how about fcking idiot? Through your long bloviations wasting space on the thread, all you keep repeating is that we should take his and MediaMorons’ word for it.

    If it had been me, I would never claim that I admired Harry Hay. But then again my mama brought me up better than that. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to ask what the hell he was talking about when he said it. Particularly since liberals rarely say exactly what they mean and always pretend to be something they’re not. Always sneaky, underhanded and two-faced. It’s a fair question and I think if he wants to keep on working with and/or for children and their safety, he better damn well answer it.

    Further, if you only want to talk to John, get his e-mail and STFU.

    No. The reason you don’t come to this site anymore (Whiskey Tango Foxtrot????) is because while you piss & moan, we don’t coddle you and tell you how brilliant you are. If you want to wallow in victimhood, there’s plenty of gay liberal panty waist sites out there.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 15, 2009 @ 6:32 pm - October 15, 2009

  18. Since you don’t want to be called a pedo, how about fcking idiot?

    Way to prove my point.

    Always sneaky, underhanded and two-faced. It’s a fair question and I think if he wants to keep on working with and/or for children and their safety, he better damn well answer it.

    Again, way to elevate the discussion with your insults. Sorry if reading hurts your head, but in adult land we sometimes need more than emoticons and insults to have discussions.

    He’s answered the questions, provided this kid’s ID, apologized and said he would have handled the situation differently. Harry Hay has a very long history with the gay movement. Dating back to the 1920s he was involved with various gay organizations up through the 90s. Jennings was specific in the quote about exactly WHAT he admired in the man, and you want to go through a man who lived almost a century and find one thing and hold Jennings accountable to everything another man did in his whole life when you evidently can’t just take a very direct quote in which he explained what he admired.

    Further, if you only want to talk to John, get his e-mail and STFU.

    Ah, telling me to shut the fuck up, again, classy.

    The reason you don’t come to this site anymore (Whiskey Tango Foxtrot????) is because while you piss & moan, we don’t coddle you and tell you how brilliant you are.

    As your post readily shows, you have an inability to have a reasoned discussion. Your inflated ego and narrow minded world view assure anyone who doesn’t agree with you is not only wrong, but warrants insults and put downs. I don’t ask for praise, merely adult, reasonable, logical engagement. If you can’t merely disagree with someone, but feel the need to insult and be a condescending jerk, don’t be surprised when you get intellectually annihilated.

    Comment by Tim — October 15, 2009 @ 6:44 pm - October 15, 2009

  19. Tim, Kevin Jennings only apologized (and said he would have handled the issue differently after it had become a political football. For years he talked about it almost ad nauseum and never once indicated he had any qualms about the way he had handled the situation.

    If you can prove me wrong on this point, please do so as I would be delighted to rescind my call for his resignation should the circumstances warrant.

    And to all, please note I am working on a followup to this piece, but want to first read a printout of Zomblog’s post. After a cursory online reading, I have reached a slightly different conclusion than the one John reaches above. And want to confirm that before I post on the issue again.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — October 15, 2009 @ 6:56 pm - October 15, 2009

  20. Can we agree on that much? Is that enough for you to have damning evidence and he should lose his job? You chose not to address this.

    No, we cannot Tim. The reason I told you to go back to Zomblog’s post is that there is more in there than just Jennings’ participation in the 1994 book:

    According to numerous sources (including for example the Queer Resources Directory and Gay Today; any number of additional links describing the incident can be found on this search results page), Harry Hay got into a very public spat with major mainstream gay organizations over their planned decision to ban NAMBLA from marching in the “Stonewall 25″ pride march in New York on June 26, 1994. Hay, who was slated to be honored as one of the celebrities in the march, instead insisted that NAMBLA be included in the celebration. When Hay was snubbed and NAMBLA was banned despite his objections, Hay broke away from the organizers and formed his own group called Spirit of Stonewall, which then proceeded to march in the parade with NAMBLA anyway — to the great chagrin of the march’s organizers and the larger gay community. This back-and-forth fight between Hay/NAMBLA and the mainstream of gay activists lasted for months and was a major topic of discussion in the gay community, especially among gay political activists living in New York. (Hay also wrote about this incident extensively in his own autobiography, which we will look at later in this memo.)

    So: What does any of this have to do with Kevin Jennings? Well, according to his own autobiography, Mama’s Boy, Preacher’s Son, Kevin Jennings was himself living in New York at the time, and was deeply involved in gay activism and politics. (The passage in question occurs on pages 211, 212, and 213 of the book. Click on the following links to see scans of those pages taken directly from Mama’s Boy, Preacher’s Son in which Jennings discusses at length his presence and activities in New York in 1994: page 211, page 212, page 213.) Considering that the Hay/NAMBLA spat was a hot topic in Jennings’ professional and personal circles, it seems extremely likely that he at least became aware of it at the time. Which means that a full three years before he gave his speech praising Harry Hay, Jennings again knew of Hay’s defense of NAMBLA.

    As should have been clear I even let you have that one for the sake of argumentation, even though I found the excuse to be unconvincing, yet STILL there is enough reason to believe that Jennings knew about Hays’ connections to NAMBLA in 1997 when he publically praised the man. From a 2007 online bio of Jennings, found at a friendly source:

    As more and more educators and students began contacting him for help, Kevin saw a need that wasn’t being met and in 1990 founded the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, a local volunteer group in the Boston area bringing together LGBT and straight teachers, parents, students and community members who wanted to end anti-LGBT bias in the state’s K-12 schools. In 1992 Kevin was appointed to co-chair the Education Committee of the Governor’s Commission on Gay & Lesbian Youth by Massachusetts Governor William Weld. He was the principal author of its report Making Schools Safe for Gay & Lesbian Youth, whose recommendations were adopted as policy by the Massachusetts State Board of Education. The Commission led the fight that made Massachusetts the first state in the nation to outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation against public school students and to establish a statewide program to insure educational equity on issues of sexual orientation in 1993.

    Kevin left Boston to come to New York that same year as a Joseph Kingenstein Fellow at Columbia University, from which he received his M.A. in 1994. Upon graduating from Columbia, Kevin left teaching to set about building the all-volunteer GLSEN organization into a national force. Under Kevin’s leadership, GLSEN has made safe schools into a national issue, increased the number of students protected from harassment and discrimination based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity by over 600%, and grown the number of GSA’s from under 50 in 1995 to over 3,000 today. GLSEN programs like GSA’s, No Name-Calling Week, and Day of Silence are now commonplace in America’s schools. Kevin was named to Newsweek magazine’s “Century Club” as one of “100 people to watch in the new century” and is also the recipient of the Human and Civil Rights Award of the National Education Association. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-jennings

    Are you seriously trying to say that given his impressive background and as well-connected as Jennings was prior to his 1997 speech that not once, never at any time, he ever heard anything about Hays’ connections to NAMBLA? Even during his time in New York starting in 1994? Never saw a single news story about the IGLA’s kicking NAMBLA out in 1994, which Hays was widely reported in criticizing, never heard about any of this from colleagues, friends, lovers or just about anybody in the NYC gay community at that time??? I’m not buying it, Tim. Either the man is a very incomeptent scholar, which whether you agree with his views or not his accomplishments seem to belie that, or he was quietly participating in the cover-up of Hays’ extremely unsavory side. Heck, Zombie does a better job than I in framing this, so please do take a crack in responding to it:

    If someone told you they really admired Adolf Hitler, you would naturally assume that they had Nazi sympathies. But if that same person later told you, “No, you misunderstand, I don’t admire Hitler because he was a Nazi: I admire him because of his love for dogs! Boy, that guy sure did love his dogs,” you probably would still harbor suspicions that something was amiss.

    I use this rather hackneyed comparison not because I think Harry Hay was like Hitler, but rather because because in our modern hierarchy of moral turpitude the only thing that equals supporting the Nazi Party is promoting pedophilia. And even if you truly did admire Hitler solely for his love of dogs, and not for his other actions, you’d be an absolute fool to walk around praising him to strangers. Because they’d inevitably assume the worst. In a similar vein, if you publicly announce your admiration for someone known to vigorously promote pedophilia — well, what do you expect the public to think? You can’t separate the two halves of Harry Hay and say you were inspired by his good side and make no mention of his bad side. Some beliefs and actions are so beyond the pale that they overwhelm and contaminate anything else the person might have done, and make him off-limits to declarations of admiration.

    And this goes straight to the heart of the matter. Even if Kevin Jennings only praised Harry Hay for his earlier activism, it’s still a major public relations blunder. The American public no more wants their Safe Schools Czar to praise a known pedophilia supporter than they want their military commanders to express admiration for Osama bin Laden (”No, really, I meant I was just inspired by the stylish way he trims his beard!”).

    Zombie’s conclusions are reasonable while your excusing Jennings on this I do not find to be convincing.

    I like Ayn Rand’s writing. There is a violent rape described in one of her books. If I read “Atlas Shrugged” should I (any therefore, any Rand admirers) be held to never praise her because she advocates raping women??? NO!

    A flawed comparison since Rand was writing about fictional characters while Jennings was writing about, and later praising, a real person.

    Comment by John — October 15, 2009 @ 7:00 pm - October 15, 2009

  21. Kevin Jennings was also a member of ACT UP

    Comment by V the K — October 15, 2009 @ 8:28 pm - October 15, 2009

  22. This almost becomes too easy.

    You are the one who can’t even produce one shred of evidence of a crime

    Actually, there are several pieces of evidence — primarily the fact that Jennings himself repeatedly stated that “Brewster” was 15 and having public sex with older men, and that Jennings refused to report it or intervene. That violates both Massachusetts age of consent laws and other statutes requiring teachers and others in positions of authority to report sexual exploitation of those under the age of consent by adults.

    Meanwhile, Tim presents as “evidence” what supposedly is a driver’s license without any identifiable marks, name, signature, photo, or number, and which remarkably resembles a fake ID blank, inexplicably produced by an organization that endorses, supports, and defends forging documents in support of liberals and Obama Party members like Jennings.

    The final hilarity is when Tim, who has insisted that “Brewster” was not raped or molested, tries to argue that “Brewster” needs privacy protection equivalent to those who have been raped or molested.

    The entertaining thing is to watch Tim complain that others are not “adults” — while demonstrating himself a narcissistic child’s worldview, in which everyone else is wrong and in which any rule that he doesn’t like should not apply.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 16, 2009 @ 1:08 am - October 16, 2009

  23. And by the way, Throbert, I’ve been reading your comments over on Zomblog, and definitely want to apologize for what I said about you last week. It’s more than obvious you are neither a leftist or apologete for them, and it was unfair and wrong for me to say that you were.

    (deep bow of respect)

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 16, 2009 @ 1:19 am - October 16, 2009

  24. NDT: Thank you, I appreciate that. And I owe you an apology as well (and VtK, but he’s used to that) — I know that both of you are astute critics of the Gay Left Mainstream here and on other sites such as IGF, and I’m glad to count you as allies. However, it does get on my nerves sometimes when you go into attack mode and lay on the hyperbole too thick.

    And the main trouble with over-the-top phrasings is not that they’re “unfair” to our opponents, but rather that it gives them a much too easy occasion to score points by refuting the hyperbole as not literally true, while dodging the underlying argument.

    Comment by Throbert McGee — October 16, 2009 @ 1:51 am - October 16, 2009

  25. Harry Hay has a very long history with the gay movement. Dating back to the 1920s he was involved with various gay organizations up through the 90s. Jennings was specific in the quote about exactly WHAT he admired in the man, and you want to go through a man who lived almost a century and find one thing and hold Jennings accountable to everything another man did in his whole life when you evidently can’t just take a very direct quote in which he explained what he admired.

    SWEET JESUS, TIM! The man EXPLOITED CHILDREN sexually for his own selfish pleasure and promoted that others do the same. To any rational, intelligent person, that zeros out any “good” he might have done. Only some sick, deranged perv would flail about making sorry ass excuses like you are.

    I wouldn’t give a crap if the man was Pope for 50 years or whatever. If he’s buggering children, he ranks several levels lower than dog shit. Those making excuses aren’t any better. I wouldn’t have said that I admired him and neither would anybody who thinks with anything more than their dick (and even some of them wouldn’t).

    Ah, telling me to shut the fuck up, again, classy.

    You don’t deserve “classy”. You can take that along with your inflated ego and narrow world view and cram it.

    I don’t ask for praise, merely adult, reasonable, logical engagement.

    No you don’t. As I said you piss & moan because we won’t agree with you that screwing children is wonderful and other “great things” you do with your life excuses it.

    If you can’t merely disagree with someone, but feel the need to insult and be a condescending jerk, don’t be surprised when you get intellectually annihilated.

    Filth deserve nothing more. I take comfort in the fact that I sure as hell won’t be “intellectually annihilated” by the likes of your sorry child buggering ass.

    May the messiah and his peace of Nobel have mercy on your rotting carcass.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 16, 2009 @ 2:03 am - October 16, 2009

  26. Well said, Throbert in #24, very well said, especially that second ¶.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — October 16, 2009 @ 2:07 am - October 16, 2009

  27. […] Kevin Jennings Knew of Harry Hay’s NAMBLA Connections? […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » If Jennings Were Aware of Harry Hay’s Support of PederastyDid he have a duty to denounce this man who inspired him? — October 16, 2009 @ 2:09 am - October 16, 2009

  28. Dating back to the 1920s he was involved with various gay organizations up through the 90s. Jennings was specific in the quote about exactly WHAT he admired in the man, and you want to go through a man who lived almost a century and find one thing and hold Jennings accountable to everything another man did in his whole life

    Ooooh! Lemme see if I can play:

    So what if Roman Polanski got a 13 y/o chick drunk and sodomized her. He’s made a lot of great films (???). And what could be greater than sticking it to “the man”, fleeing to Europe and becoming a “man of the world”? Besides, the bitch wanted it by showing up at Nicholson’s house unescorted, right?

    Oh yeah. John Wayne Gacy was active in his community. He threw block parties and loved to entertain children. He did work for the local democrat office, so he was politically active. He was made “outstanding vice-president” of the local Jaycees. I’m sure Waterloo, Illinois died a little inside in 1994.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 16, 2009 @ 3:47 am - October 16, 2009

  29. #28: And one more thing, TGC, like Polanski, Gacy was a GREAT artist. His portraits of clowns are absolutely breathtaking. Oh yeah–and he buried something like 30 men and boys under his house that he had murdered. So, you certainly can’t say he was lazy (plus, he was a homeowner!).

    Comment by Sean A — October 16, 2009 @ 10:13 am - October 16, 2009

  30. And the main trouble with over-the-top phrasings is not that they’re “unfair” to our opponents, but rather that it gives them a much too easy occasion to score points by refuting the hyperbole as not literally true, while dodging the underlying argument.

    Throbert, that’s true. But in many cases, not only is the hyperbole not literally true, it is outright false. In any case, resorting to hyperbole usually means the person doesn’t have an argument for the actual issue, and needs to make stuff up in order to try to win the argument. It’s bad enough when anyone does it, but more disappointing when someone who is otherwise intelligent does it.

    Comment by Pat — October 16, 2009 @ 10:35 am - October 16, 2009

  31. […] Kevin Jennings Knew of Harry Hay’s NAMBLA Connections? […]

    Pingback by Kevin Jennings Safe Schools Czar – Age 15, or 16, What’s the Difference ? « Angry Californian — October 17, 2009 @ 12:21 pm - October 17, 2009

  32. As a straight married USA patriot, I am proud to have found your website while looking for information on this Marxist goofball Jennings who thinks having sex with children is OK. The Mainstream Media or as we have come to know it under the Reign of Obama, the State Run Media, has made all Gays, Lesbians and Transgender folks out to be Leftist Loons ready to trash the US Constitution and fall in line behind the Dear Leader and his Chicago Thugs.

    Many regular conservatives in the straight Patriot community support gay marriage as long as it is deemed legal by state and not federal government. The second breath away from President Bush for 8 years, Dick Cheney feels the same way. The Lunatic in the Whitehouse has made it an issue in order to exploit the Gay Community for votes as he does every “special interest” group.

    By keeping America splintered into fragments, he has us fight each other rather than the real “Public Enemy #1” – Barack Hussein Obama and his Communist Legion in the Whitehouse and Congress.

    Your website is to be commended and your message is true. God Bless you.

    Comment by Roscoe Bonefitucci — October 23, 2009 @ 6:47 am - October 23, 2009

  33. […] […]

    Pingback by Catholic church links pedophilia with homosexuality - Politics and Other Controversies -Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - Page 6 - City-Data Forum — April 14, 2010 @ 1:43 pm - April 14, 2010

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.