Gay Patriot Header Image

DADT Repeal Imminent

Seems Harry Reid finally got his act together:

In a landmark vote for gay rights, the Senate on Saturday voted to advance legislation that would overturn the military ban on openly gay troops known as “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

The 63-33 test vote all but guarantees the legislation will pass the Senate, possibly by day’s end, and reach the president’s desk before the new year.

Interesting that the AP bills this as a vote for gay rights.  This issue shouldn’t be about gay rights, but instead about military effectiveness.  If gay people can serve without harming unit cohesion, then the ban should be lifted.  Fortunately the legislation under consideration returns the decision-making authority over this issue to those who should the final decision, our military leaders:

Even after the measure were to become law, the policy change wouldn’t go into effect right away. Obama and his military advisers would have certify that the change wouldn’t hurt the ability of troops to fight, and there would also be a 60-day waiting period.

Not sure I’ll have much opportunity today  to blog on the matter, but will try to update as time allows.

Share

69 Comments

  1. Read the report.

    Comment by American Elephant — December 18, 2010 @ 1:42 pm - December 18, 2010

  2. Surprise, surprise… all the douchebag moderate GOP senators broke their pledge to not vote on anything until the tax and government funding issues were settled: Brown, Collins, Kirk, Murkowski, Snowe, Voinivich.

    Comment by V the K — December 18, 2010 @ 1:50 pm - December 18, 2010

  3. […] DADT Repeal Imminent […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » A Nightmare Over — December 18, 2010 @ 1:59 pm - December 18, 2010

  4. “Interesting that the AP bills this as a vote for gay rights. This issue shouldn’t be about gay rights, but instead about military effectiveness.”

    I don’t mean to be unkind but B. Daniel, will you PLEASE stop pretending that you’re concerned about military effectiveness! Neither you nor anyone else who supports repeal gives a damn about military effectiveness so stop lying and saying that you do.

    Please hear me right.

    I’m NOT saying that repeal will harm military effectiveness; I’m saying that supporters of repeal don’t care about military effectiveness. If they did they’d be (perhaps grudgingly) ok with DADT because that policy has NOT harmed military effectiveness. The military has brilliantly performed its job, i.e. killing our enemies and breaking their things, with DADT in place.

    The AP got it exactly right. This IS about gay rights. This is about social engineering. This is about forcing yet another institution in our culture to be a vehicle for the normalizing, legitimizing, and mainstreaming of homosexuality. Period. The AP was honest about the intent of repeal. Would that repeal supporters here were, too.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — December 18, 2010 @ 2:04 pm - December 18, 2010

  5. I read the report, AE. Repeal is the right move and I thank God this day has finally come. As for the 6 Republican Senators that voted for this, good for them. Glad I sent money to Brown when he ran too.

    Comment by John — December 18, 2010 @ 2:23 pm - December 18, 2010

  6. “Repeal is the right move…” Why, John? Is repeal going to make the military more effective? Will bombs and bullets be more lethal being dropped or shot by an openly gay soldier rather than a closeted one? Will the thought of facing openly gay soldiers make our enemies more likely to surrender? If military effectiveness is the only reason to even consider repealing DADT then these and similar questions are quite pertinent.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — December 18, 2010 @ 2:35 pm - December 18, 2010

  7. Seane- Anna,

    I just wonder how we can ask a soldier to serve honorably if they’re forced to lie about who they are, either passively or actively. Isn’t that in it self dishonorable?

    And the fact that the military has lost over 13,000 capable men and women is in itself harmful to the military. All other things equal, what makes a straight person a better soldier than a gay one?

    Comment by AJ — December 18, 2010 @ 2:58 pm - December 18, 2010

  8. And the fact that the military has lost over 13,000 capable men and women is in itself harmful to the military.

    A substantial percentage of whom were straight and looking for an exit when they realized that military life was hard.

    Now, without that safety valve, the military is sort of stuck with those malcontents, and they only have the option of a dishonorable discharge.

    Comment by V the K — December 18, 2010 @ 3:04 pm - December 18, 2010

  9. AJ, DADT has been the policy of the military for 17 years. It wasn’t hidden, so any gay person who joined the military knew about the policy and was prepared to keep his or her sexuality private in order to serve. Also, those 13,000 people who were discharged amount to less than 1 per cent of the military so I highly doubt that their absense broke the back of military to perform its job. And what about the straight people who were discharged during that same period? Why don’t you argue that that harmed the military? Or are we supposed to believe that it’s only the discharging of gays that’s harmful to the armed forces?

    AJ, your argument just proves my point that the real intent of repeal is to promote homosexuality and has NOTHING to do with improving military effectiveness. But I doubt if you’ll admit that. No other supporters of repeal here have.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — December 18, 2010 @ 3:12 pm - December 18, 2010

  10. V to the K,

    Lol, let’s blame the gays for everything!

    Really? A substantial percentage? I’m sure you have some proof, or statistics to back up that ridiculous claim. Won’t hold my breath though.

    Comment by AJ — December 18, 2010 @ 3:16 pm - December 18, 2010

  11. It’s not about promoting homosexuality, it’s about letting the men and women of our military serve without lying. It’s about making sure that the military has the best people they can get.

    I’m still wondering what makes a gay person less qualified to serve than a straight person. As long as they both exhibit the same level of discipline and obey the same set of rules, why is a gay soldier inherently worse than a straight one? Denying mentally capable, able bodied men and women the right to serve their country makes no sense. How does that help the military in he long run?

    Comment by AJ — December 18, 2010 @ 3:21 pm - December 18, 2010

  12. Ah, but you see, AJ, gay and lesbian people have no interest in following the same set of rules. That’s on reason.

    The second is that straight soldiers are not required to follow leftist anti-military ideology. As Nick pointed out, the leftist and gay and lesbian community has mocked, harassed, and attacked our troops, calling them “uninvited and unwelcome intruders”, calling for the military to be defunded and abolished, sending arms and supplies to the terrorists trying to kill them, and doing their best to slander and attack them in the media and in the courtroom, I.e Haditha.

    So let’s see; you have a group of people who demand special privileges, refuse to obey the rules, and originate in an ideology that wants our troops dead.

    DADT kept out those gays who were unfit to serve. When it wasn’t followed and enforced, people like Bradley Manning showed what happens.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 18, 2010 @ 3:39 pm - December 18, 2010

  13. AJ, you’re still missing the point. No gay person who wanted to serve his country was prevented from doing so by DADT. All gays who enlisted in the military under DADT did so knowing IN ADVANCE that they would have to keep their sexuality private. Apparently, keeping their sexuality private was something that most of those gay persons were ok with. Most if not all of the push for repealing DADT has come from civilian, mostly left-wing gays who have no intention of serving.

    And AJ, if this is not about promoting homosexuality then I ask you, would you oppose sensitivity training that’s almost certain to follow on the heels of repeal? Would you oppose any attempt to force military chaplains to officiate at gay weddings? In short, would you be happy with a repeal that was only about allowing gays to serve openly but didn’t give any special recognition to gay relationships or gay rights? I doubt it.

    And on the question of the qualification of gays, I suspect you believe that a person’s sexuality doesn’t determine his or her ability to fight, right? So, AJ, you’d be happy with open pedophiles serving in the military, then? How about someone who was having a consensual, sexual relationship with his sister or, to muddy the waters a bit, his brother? What about a practicing polygamist? If all that matters for military service is a person’s ability to shoot straight, to paraphrase Barry Goldwater, then all sexual behaviors and lifestyles are entitled to open expression in and support by the armed forces. But such consistency has never been practiced by gays and their straight allies and I don’t expect them to start now.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — December 18, 2010 @ 3:42 pm - December 18, 2010

  14. ’m sure you have some proof, or statistics to back up that ridiculous claim. Won’t hold my breath though.

    A very good friend of mine was a Colonel in the USAF whose duties included discharging personnel under DADT. 90% of the people he discharged under DADT self-reported and requested discharge. The opinion I expressed was his.

    Naturally, no one in the media is going to actually survey and follow up on people discharged under DADT. If what my friend reports is accurate, it would undermine the elite consensus.

    Comment by V the K — December 18, 2010 @ 3:50 pm - December 18, 2010

  15. For the record, I am not opposed to gays serving openly in the military provided they are subject to the same disciplinary standards as heterosexuals. But, I’m not about to sweep facts under the rug just because they are inconvenient. And I am disappointed (but not surprised) that six RINO’s broke their pledge and voted for this instead of waiting for the tax and funding issues to be voted on.

    Comment by V the K — December 18, 2010 @ 3:52 pm - December 18, 2010

  16. Agreed, V the K. As I told ILC and Peter last Sunday at our soirée, the primary value of dadt is to keep out the whiny victim-mongering gays who shriek homophobia and leak state secrets because a superior officer asked them to get coffee.

    And when it isn’t enforced, as we see with Bradley Manning, that’s what you get — along with the gayand lesbian community shrieking that he shouldn’t be punished, a la Glenn Greenwald.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 18, 2010 @ 4:06 pm - December 18, 2010

  17. NDT, I don’t know why you think gays don’t want to follow the rules. You seem to like to take a few examples of vile or treasonous gays and use them to smear us all. I could sit here and detail every instance of treason committed by a straight person and claim that all straights are bad for national security. However, that argument doesn’t make sense and for you to claim that gays in the military are bad because they’re all prissy is ridiculous.

    TGC, the fact that they still served the country even though they couldn’t be open about who they were makes their service all the more admirable.

    And there is no special recognition for gays in this bill and the fact that gay marriage is illegal federally means there won’t be any with regards to gay marriage. No special recognition should be given to gays. All that should be and would be allowed is their ability to serve openly. Again I ask you how is it honorable to lie about who you are? Isn’t honor one of the most important qualities of our served forces?

    Your argument about deviant sexuals serving isridiculous. All those things you mentioned are illegal, of course they shouldn’t be allowed to serve in the military. How you can compare a loving relationship between two consenting adults of the same sex to pedophilia is beyond me. Why would you think people who practice illegal sexual acts should gain the same recognition as law abiding gays? How does that argument make sense?

    Comment by AJ — December 18, 2010 @ 4:49 pm - December 18, 2010

  18. sorry, meant to address Seane Anna in 13 in the second part of my post above.

    Comment by AJ — December 18, 2010 @ 5:21 pm - December 18, 2010

  19. […] test vote all but guarantees the legislation will pass the Senate, possibly by day’s … – ReadmoreYou may like this related video about Dadt Repeal here: Rep – DADT Repeal Would Lead To […]

    Pingback by Dadt Repeal | US News Headline — December 18, 2010 @ 5:41 pm - December 18, 2010

  20. I don’t know why you think gays don’t want to follow the rules.

    Because every time a gay person does something horrible — Bradley Manning, Jim McGreevey, Sam Adams, George Michael, Kevin Jennings — those who declare themselves leaders in the “Gay Community” fall over themselves defending and making excuses for them.

    Comment by V the K — December 18, 2010 @ 5:42 pm - December 18, 2010

  21. Anyone can declare themselves a leader in the gay community. Leaders/members of the straight community come to the defense of pedophiles, murderers and adulterers all the time. I guess they don’t want to follow the rules either.

    Again, using the actions of a few treasonous, irresponsible gays to define the whole movement is irresponsible. It’s a terrible argument to make and doesn’t do anything to show how gays as a whole don’t want to follow rules.

    Comment by AJ — December 18, 2010 @ 5:52 pm - December 18, 2010

  22. HAHAHAHA That’s it bigot kiddies, fight amongst yourselves. Your cannibalism is sweet sweet Schadenfreude sustenance for us.

    Comment by PeeJ — December 18, 2010 @ 6:06 pm - December 18, 2010

  23. Wow, great day and fantastic repeal and…

    “douchebag moderate GOP senators”???

    #21 is right. You people are really screwed in the head.

    Oh, and Free Republic doesn’t want pro-repeal people visiting anymore. So cuddle up with yourselves–your ideological brethren hate you.

    Comment by sean — December 18, 2010 @ 6:13 pm - December 18, 2010

  24. I would argue that people who make a living off donations to gay rights groups or subscriptions to gay publications or other media can be said to represent the opinions of a substantial portion of the gay community; else, there would be other leadership expressing different opinions. If there are examples of gay activists condemning the bad behavior of people like Bradley Manning, Jim McGreevey, Kevin Jennings et. al…. kindly cite, please.

    [A quick search on Bing reveals that Defenders of Kevin Jennings include Media Matters, the Southern Poverty Law Center, ThinkProgress, The HRC, The Huffington Post, leftist gay bloggers Pam’s House Blend, AmericaBlog, Andrew Sullivan, and Towleroad, The Advocate… that’s a pretty strong cross-section of the gay mainstream.]

    Comment by V the K — December 18, 2010 @ 6:14 pm - December 18, 2010

  25. BTW, Kevin Jennings spent the better part of a decade bragging to gay activists groups about helping a 15 year old boy hook up with an older man he met in a bus station rest room and no one ever raise a peep about it. That speaks volumes about the broad acceptance of this sort of behavior… which I find pretty appalling.

    And then there’s the Berkeley City Council considering a resolution to declare Bradley Manning a hero… which is equally appalling.

    Comment by V the K — December 18, 2010 @ 6:26 pm - December 18, 2010

  26. What is there to defend with Kevin Jennings? He advised a 16 year old to practice safe sex. You may not agree with his actions, but they were well within his legal rights. Just because you think they were wrong doesn’t mean much.

    And what mainstream organization, gay or otherwise, has defended Bradley Manning simply because he’s gay? I’ve seen people in general say they agree with him, but they’re coming from an anti war standpoint for the most part. I didn’t realize that gay groups had to condemn the bad behavior of every member of the community.

    Comment by AJ — December 18, 2010 @ 6:28 pm - December 18, 2010

  27. Kevin Jennings? Oh fer fuck’s sake, the case against Kevin Jennings is nonexistent unless you’re a rabid ideologue.

    McGreevy suppporters are less numerous than Sen. Diaper Vitters’, fewer than Mark Sanford’s, less vocal than any number of other “family values” pols.

    Where are the supporters of Manning? You’ll be hard pressed to find any – sure, there will be some on the fringe just as there are extremists right here.

    Your “argument” is a joke.

    Comment by PeeJ — December 18, 2010 @ 6:33 pm - December 18, 2010

  28. http://mediamatters.org/blog/200910020020

    There’s a link to the scanned drivers license of the student. Say what you want about how disgusting it may have been to give that advice, but it was legal. And even though it comes from a liberal news source, facts are facts, sorry. 16 was the legal age of consent, so no statutory rape, no illegal advice, just an educator doing their job.

    Comment by AJ — December 18, 2010 @ 6:34 pm - December 18, 2010

  29. Again AJ, you have a blurred license allegedly from ‘Brewster’

    Meanwhile you have Kevin Jennings for years describing him as 15 in the story. Suddenly he got older when Jennings’ breaking the law came into the spotlight.

    Nice try though.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 18, 2010 @ 6:44 pm - December 18, 2010

  30. Check your facts A Jerk: Kevin Jennings went around for ten years bragging that the kid was 15 and even wrote that in his biography. He only changed it to 16 when people began publicizing the story.

    Also, facilitating a hook-up between a 16 year old boy and an older man is disgusting. I don’t care what the law says. It’s not the sort of thing that should be applauded.

    Comment by V the K — December 18, 2010 @ 6:45 pm - December 18, 2010

  31. No he didn’t. He never said he was 15 in his biography and never said on tape or anywhere that the guy was 15. The student in question even said the same thing, that he was 16.

    If i’m wrong, which is always possible, I’d love for you to show me where Jennings wrote, said his age was 15. I tend to prefer good arguments and facts over hearsay and silly name calling.

    Comment by AJ — December 18, 2010 @ 6:54 pm - December 18, 2010

  32. Also, facilitating a hook-up between a 16 year old boy and an older man is disgusting. I don’t care what the law says. It’s not the sort of thing that should be applauded.

    That opinion is your right to have. But sounds like u have an issue more with the legislature than with gay rights groups. Different people have different opinions on age of consent laws. As long as the law is obeyed in the jurisdiction you’re in, I feel as though I have no right to judge an individual for who they want to be with.

    Comment by AJ — December 18, 2010 @ 6:59 pm - December 18, 2010

  33. What Kevin Jennings said:

    I said, “Brewster, what are you doing in there asleep?” And he said, “Well, I’m tired.” And I said, “Well we all are tired and we all got to school today.” And he said, “Well I was out late last night.” And I said, “What were you doing out late on a school night.” And he said, “Well, I was in Boston…” Boston was about 45 minutes from Concord. So I said, “What were you doing in Boston on a school night Brewster?” He got very quiet, and he finally looked at me and said, “Well I met someone in the bus station bathroom and I went home with him.” High school sophomore, 15 years old. That was the only way he knew how to meet gay people. I was a closeted gay teacher, 24 years old, didn’t know what to say. Knew I should say something quickly so I finally said, “My best friend had just died of AIDS the week before.” I looked at Brewster and said, “You know, I hope you knew to use a condom.”

    And if you read the link, the story tracks precisely to what Jennings recounted in One Teacher in Ten.

    But, apparently, since the idea of older men hooking up with minors doesn’t bother AJ, I think the point is made.

    Comment by V the K — December 18, 2010 @ 7:20 pm - December 18, 2010

  34. And if you read the link, the story tracks precisely to what Jennings recounted in One Teacher in Ten.

    But, apparently, since the idea of older men hooking up with minors doesn’t bother AJ, I think the point is made.

    This essentially amounts to hearsay. He claims that he is quoting a quote from a tape that he received from fox news that supposedly said the student was 15. Yet Fox News has already issued a comment saying that the student was in fact 16.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/23/critics-assail-obamas-safe-schools-czar-say-hes-wrong-man-job/

    If this tape said that, then Fox News would have had no reason to issue the above statement on their website. Seems like any credible media source, left or right, is reporting the student to be 16.

    And please don’t put words in my mouth. Legal sex between two consenting adults is fine with me. Men having illegal sex with boys is disgusting. You implying that I ever said otherwise is dishonest on your part and not conducive to civil debate.

    Comment by AJ — December 18, 2010 @ 7:45 pm - December 18, 2010

  35. That’s where you and I differ. I think men having sex with boys is disgusting and wrong regardless of what the law says. The law in Spain and Holland has set the age of consent as low as 12.

    And I guess slavery prior to 1864 would have been okay with you, too. Since it was perfectly legal in a number of jurisdictions, and you have stated that you have no right to judge an individual, “As long as the law is obeyed in the jurisdiction you’re in.”

    Or is slavery somehow different in your view than the sexual exploitation of minors?

    Comment by V the K — December 18, 2010 @ 7:56 pm - December 18, 2010

  36. That’s fine. Wasting time worrying about what people legally do in their own bedroom is not appealing to me. If you have a problem with the law, then actively work to change it. Sitting back and passing judgement on people who are law abiding citizens is silly.

    Slavery was unfortunate, but it was legal. Eventually people realized it and had laws changed. That’s how the world works. If 16 year olds shouldn’t be having sex, then I’m sure enough people will actively work to get that law changed. People may hold themselves to a higher standard than the law, and in some instances I do. My point is that while I can judge other law abiding citizens, it doesn’t change anything. Why should people be held to my moral standard? That’s for them and the law to decide and for God to judge.

    Comment by AJ — December 18, 2010 @ 8:07 pm - December 18, 2010

  37. This is really going to sour relations with those of us who are with you all on so many other issues. That’s the worst part about this.

    As a Libertarian Republican who opposed Gay Marriage and a Veteran, I feel like I’ve just been punched in the stomach.

    Those of you Gay Rightists and other Gays in the Military advocates are not going to find a warm and fuzzy welcome feeling from those of us on the losing side of this issue in the future. It’s going to take a lot of heeling. A rift has now been open on the Right, I’m very sorry to say.

    Eric Dondero, pubisher
    LibertarianRepublican.net
    US Navy Vet, 1981-85 (hon.)

    Comment by Eric Dondero — December 18, 2010 @ 8:32 pm - December 18, 2010

  38. There’s a link to the scanned drivers license of the student.

    Actually, I have a copy of the driver’s license, which makes it clear that the student was fourteen at the time of Jennings telling him to have sex and refusing to report it to the authorities.

    Of course, it doesn’t have a name, picture, address, or any other identifying mark, but it is the student’s. That’s all the proof you need.

    This essentially amounts to hearsay.

    Actually, in the link V the K provided, Warren Throckmorton prints direct excerpts of Jennings’s books about the incident — and also points out that Jennings’s actions broke the Massachusetts law requiring reporting of sexual activity between an adult and child under the age of 18.

    For some reason, Jennings seems amazingly supportive of adults having sex with children. Why is that? Is this the explanation for why the HIV rate among teenagers has skyrocketed?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 18, 2010 @ 9:40 pm - December 18, 2010

  39. More lies from V the K: “The law in Spain and Holland has set the age of consent as low as 12. ”

    The age of consent in the Netherlands is 16, as specified by the Dutch Criminal Code, Articles 245 and 247

    The age of consent in Spain is 13. However, if deceit is used in gaining the consent of a minor under 16 years an individual can be charged under Article 183(1) upon parental complaint.

    Comment by Wim Prange — December 19, 2010 @ 2:44 am - December 19, 2010

  40. @NDT #38: “Actually, in the link V the K provided, Warren Throckmorton prints direct excerpts of Jennings’s books about the incident”.

    What the excerpts make clear is that Kevin Jennings took pains to hide the identity of the people involved through changing names, circumstances, situations, and age. These are all very common practice when using real life cases where you want to hide the identity of the people concerned.

    This is absolutely a non-issue.

    Comment by Wim Prange — December 19, 2010 @ 2:48 am - December 19, 2010

  41. @NDT #38 “I have a copy of the driver’s license, which makes it clear that the student was fourteen at the time of Jennings telling him to have sex”.

    From Fox News:

    “I was 16 when Kevin gave me the advice he gave me. I was born in July of 1971, and the conversation happened in 1988,” Brewster told FOX News on Friday.

    “I had no sexual contact with anybody at the time, though I was entirely legally free to do so,”

    Comment by Wim Prange — December 19, 2010 @ 2:59 am - December 19, 2010

  42. You are such a fucking traitor. Benedict Arnold would kick you to death.

    Comment by Jack Elam — December 19, 2010 @ 7:18 am - December 19, 2010

  43. Thank you for confirming that Jennings broke the law, Wim, AJ. amazing how the story changed when it became an issue

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 19, 2010 @ 9:04 am - December 19, 2010

  44. #37:

    As a Libertarian Republican who opposed Gay Marriage and a Veteran

    Wow, which veteran did you oppose? What did he or she do to turn you off?

    Anyone else cracking up at all the hilarious solecisms and outright malepropisms in this “libertarian” hysteria from a “pubisher”?

    Comment by The log cabin is outside the big tent — December 19, 2010 @ 11:25 am - December 19, 2010

  45. Ha, I don’t know how that was confirmed. Any credible news source has reported the individual to have been 16. If you want to ignore facts, that’s fine, but you’re wrong on this one. Though it doesn’t matter because the rights attempt to smear him with lies failed anyways. In the end, the facts won out.

    Comment by AJ — December 19, 2010 @ 11:44 am - December 19, 2010

  46. Nice try AJ.

    Jennings was required, by law, to report the incident as it involved a minor. He didn’t. And to link to another quote
    “High school sophomore, 15 years old. That was the only way he knew how to meet gay people. I was a closeted gay teacher, 24 years old, didn’t know what to say. Knew I should say something quickly so I finally said, “My best friend had just died of AIDS the week before.” I looked at Brewster and said, “You know, I hope you knew to use a condom.””

    His. Own. Words.

    Also his own words “Twenty-one years later I can see how I should have handled this situation differently. I should have asked for more information and consulted legal or medical authorities.”

    Yeah, like following the law.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 19, 2010 @ 1:22 pm - December 19, 2010

  47. Essentially, the issue comes down to when was Kevin Jennings lying.

    Was he lying when he told friendly gay audiences about how he was proud of facilitating a relationship between a 15 year old boy (his own words) and an older man.

    Or was he lying when retconned the boy to 16 and told the media he should have done things differently after a controversy erupted and his job was at stake.

    Under which of those circumstances is a person more likely to lie?

    And when is it ever appropriate for a teacher to facilitate a sexual relationship between a minor and an older adult?

    Comment by V the K — December 19, 2010 @ 2:17 pm - December 19, 2010

  48. He wasn’t a minor, he was 16, the legal age of consent, no laws were broken. Jennings may have mispoke or whatever that ONE time on tape, but it doesn’t matter what he said then. Multiple, credible, independent news sources have confirmed that he was 16. As soon as you can discredit Fox News and CNN then you’ll be right. Until then you’re just being delusional.

    http://articles.cnn.com/2009-10-02/politics/jennings.student_1_gay-student-mr-jennings-kevin-jennings?_s=PM:POLITICS

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/23/critics-assail-obamas-safe-schools-czar-say-hes-wrong-man-job/

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/03/student-defends-obamas-safe-schools-czar-allegations/

    So please, someone show me which law he broke, the actual penal code. If you want to stare in the face of facts, then that is fine. Please ignore the state of Massachusetts, the news divisions of CNN and Fox News. That is what you have to do to arrive at your wacky conclusion.

    Comment by AJ — December 19, 2010 @ 4:59 pm - December 19, 2010

  49. So answer the question AJ. Which time was he lying The time before it became an issue? Or after?

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 19, 2010 @ 5:47 pm - December 19, 2010

  50. From AJ’s link.

    “The Washington Times reported in 2004 that “state authorities said Mr. Jennings filed no report in 1988.” A spokeswoman for the Massachusetts Department for Children and Families, the department to which Jennings — as a Massachusetts teacher — would have been legally obliged to report the situation, did not return calls from FOXNews.com.”

    Any other evidence you’d like to produce proving my point for me?

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 19, 2010 @ 5:50 pm - December 19, 2010

  51. If he was lying/mispoke before, it doesn’t matter. I don’t know why it’s so hard for you to understand that the drivers license of the student has been seen, and credible news sources have verified it. The quote above only applied if the student was under 16, he wasn’t.

    Either find actual, codified law that he broke or a way to refute the student’s state issued drivers license. Until then, Jennings is simply a law abiding citizen you disagree with.

    Comment by AJ — December 19, 2010 @ 6:15 pm - December 19, 2010

  52. AJ’s hypocrisy has reached the completely laughable level.

    If he was lying/mispoke before, it doesn’t matter.

    Jennings may have mispoke or whatever that ONE time on tape, but it doesn’t matter what he said then.

    But before, what was AJ screaming?

    I just wonder how we can ask a soldier to serve honorably if they’re forced to lie about who they are, either passively or actively. Isn’t that in it self dishonorable?

    Jennings lied, and AJ whines that it doesn’t matter, that it’s not dishonorable, and that it’s perfectly normal and irrelevant when gays and lesbians lie.

    And even better:

    NDT, I don’t know why you think gays don’t want to follow the rules.

    Because, AJ, you are sitting here screaming and whining that it “doesn’t matter” that Jennings broke Massachusetts law by failing to report a sexual encounter between an adult and an individual under the age of 18.

    You are sitting here screaming and whining that it “doesn’t matter” that Jennings is outright lying.

    You are sitting here screaming and whining that Trig Palin’s birth certificate be produced to “prove” that he is Sarah Palin’s child, but refusing to produce the actual driver’s license with name, address, photo, and number that would convincingly identify “Brewster” and give his true age.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 19, 2010 @ 7:39 pm - December 19, 2010

  53. Nice try NDT. Again, not discussing how honorable Jennings is, just saying he didn’t break the law. Show me the actual code he broke. I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure he’s broken no law.

    Again, you change the terms of the debate. You are terrible at formulating relevant arguments. Show me the law he broke, actual link to MA penal code, please.

    If I’m wrong, then I’ve learned something I didn’t know before. Doubt you will actually follow through with a link to the law he broke, even though that is the discussion at hand.

    Comment by AJ — December 19, 2010 @ 8:20 pm - December 19, 2010

  54. Show me the actual code he broke.

    With pleasure.

    Section 51A. (a) A mandated reporter who, in his professional capacity, has reasonable cause to believe that a child is suffering physical or emotional injury resulting from: (i) abuse inflicted upon him which causes harm or substantial risk of harm to the child’s health or welfare, including sexual abuse; (ii) neglect, including malnutrition; or (iii) physical dependence upon an addictive drug at birth, shall immediately communicate with the department orally and, within 48 hours, shall file a written report with the department detailing the suspected abuse or neglect.

    And before you start spinning more:

    Section 21. As used in sections 21 to 51H, inclusive, the following words shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly otherwise requires:—

    “51A report”, a report filed with the department under section 51A that details suspected child abuse or neglect.

    “Child”, a person under the age of 18.

    “Mandated reporter”, a person who is: (ii) a public or private school teacher, educational administrator, guidance or family counselor, child care worker, person paid to care for or work with a child in any public or private facility, or home or program funded by the commonwealth or licensed under chapter 15D that provides child care or residential services to children or that provides the services of child care resource and referral agencies, voucher management agencies or family child care systems or child care food programs, licensor of the department of early education and care or school attendance officer;

    So the pedophile Jennings refused to report child sexual activity AS HE WAS MANDATED TO DO BY LAW.

    Of course you understand, don’t you, AJ? You’re just like Jennings; you wouldn’t report a child having sex with an adult. That would make you a bad gay, wouldn’t it?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 19, 2010 @ 8:51 pm - December 19, 2010

  55. Thank you for finding the link, NDT.

    And of course, AJ already provided us with the link that no report was filed.

    So again, Thank you AJ, for disproving your own point.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 19, 2010 @ 8:57 pm - December 19, 2010

  56. Did abuse occur? The law doesn’t require that he report sex, just sexual abuse. If Jennings had reason to believe the person was being abused, then yes, you would be right. Consensual, legal sex is not abuse and the law did not require him to report that.

    But I do appreciate you showing me the law you were referencing. It’s not applicable in this case, but at least I learned something.

    Comment by AJ — December 19, 2010 @ 8:59 pm - December 19, 2010

  57. I mean you may believe that consensual sex between a 16 year old and an older man constituted abuse, but legally it doesn’t. Nothing in that link proves Jennings broke any law. Again, he is simply a law abiding citizen you strongly disagree with.

    Comment by AJ — December 19, 2010 @ 9:01 pm - December 19, 2010

  58. And they wonder why a broad swath of the public regards gay men as sexual predators.

    Comment by V the K — December 19, 2010 @ 9:05 pm - December 19, 2010

  59. Defending a persons right to have a legal, consensual relatuonship makes me a predator? closed minded much?

    Then I guess state officials in MA ,past and present, are predators as well since they’ve allowed this terrible law to remain in place.

    Comment by AJ — December 19, 2010 @ 9:16 pm - December 19, 2010

  60. Then I guess state officials in MA ,past and present, are predators as well since they’ve allowed this terrible law to remain in place.

    Not really. They support and endorse the law that requires teachers to report sexual activity reported to them of a person under the age of 18.

    Only Kevin Jennings and the gay and lesbian community have a problem with teachers reporting sexual activity, especially when it involves bareback gay sex with older men in a bus station restroom.

    Once you realize the behaviors that AJ and Kevin Jennings support, the skyrocketing rates of HIV and STDs among teenagers become much more understandable. Apparently, perverts like Jennings want them infected early so that he doesn’t have to waste time with condoms.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 19, 2010 @ 9:28 pm - December 19, 2010

  61. Whatever NDT. You can change the argument again. That law applies to sexual abuse, not activity. Believe what you want, but u have failed to show how Jennings broke a law. Seems once facts fail you, you rant about random topics instead.

    Comment by AJ — December 19, 2010 @ 9:31 pm - December 19, 2010

  62. And of course, AJ is taking the typical argument of the pervert left in this situation.

    “Academically, we are obviously all morally opposed to incest and rightfully so,” he told ABCNews.com. “At the same time, there is an argument to be made in the Swiss case to let go what goes on privately in bedrooms.”

    “It’s OK for homosexuals to do whatever they want in their own home,” he said. “How is this so different? We have to figure out why some behavior is tolerated and some is not.”

    But he questioned why, if the alleged incest was consensual, why Epstein’s daughter had been treated by prosecutors as “somehow a victim here, when she can be best described as an accomplice.”

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 19, 2010 @ 9:34 pm - December 19, 2010

  63. That law applies to sexual abuse, not activity.

    And that’s the problem, AJ.

    You are desperately spinning that an adult having bareback sex with a sixteen-year-old in a bus station restroom is somehow a normal, consensual relationship.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 19, 2010 @ 9:39 pm - December 19, 2010

  64. I’m not desperately doing anything. I’m just stating the law. If you have a problem with it, then try and get it changed. But at least we’ve established that Jennings didn’t break any current law, glad we can agree on something.

    Comment by AJ — December 19, 2010 @ 9:56 pm - December 19, 2010

  65. And slavery was perfectly moral and acceptable when it was the law. And it would be wrong to criticize slaveowners, since they were engaged in perfectly legal activity. So, speaketh AJ.

    Comment by V the K — December 19, 2010 @ 10:05 pm - December 19, 2010

  66. Again, all I said was that he didn’t break the law. I’m sorry I don’t waste my time chastising people for what they legally do in their bedroom. If you have a problem with it, get the law changed. It’s not wrong to criticize people for what they do, just wrong to say someone broke a law when they did no such thing, and Jennings broke no law.

    Comment by AJ — December 19, 2010 @ 10:10 pm - December 19, 2010

  67. Note, in AJ’s world, asking for money for sex isn’t a crime until the actual sex is committed.

    Prostitutes and Johns are now rejoycing at AJ’s wisdom.

    Propositioning a child for sex is abuse AJ.

    Again from your own link:
    The Washington Times reported in 2004 that “state authorities said Mr. Jennings filed no report in 1988.” A spokeswoman for the Massachusetts Department for Children and Families, the department to which Jennings — as a Massachusetts teacher — would have been legally obliged to report the situation, did not return calls from FOXNews.com.

    Emphasis mine for the morally impared.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 20, 2010 @ 6:37 am - December 20, 2010

  68. It is a matter of civil rights. Either you are for civil rights for all people or you are against them. I understand that the military has additional rules that are pertinent to military service, but denying a group of Americans their civil rights should not, and now is not, part of those rules.

    I’ve yet to hear a single argument that does not exactly mirror the comments made when women and blacks were trying to join the armed sources.

    Those of you who are so opposed are simply on the wrong side of history.

    Comment by Jeffery — December 20, 2010 @ 12:26 pm - December 20, 2010

  69. Jeffrey,

    As has been discussed, there is no ‘right’ to serve in the military. Stating it over and over again does not change that.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 20, 2010 @ 1:17 pm - December 20, 2010

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.