I had not wanted to write about (much less argue about) the rather tedious gay politician Kevin Jennings, but for reasons which elude me, I feel that my hand has been forced.

Or has it? Should I be entitled to ignore issues that are raised here at my own blog? Do I have any duty to speak up? The reason I feel obligated is not because I want to start a debate, but because had I been a stranger and seen the post about Jennings, I might have made certain assumptions about this blog, and I probably would have made a peremptory decision not to come back. (Plus, I wouldn't want to lose all four of my gay readers, would I?)

Anyway, as I noted in a comment, I think the position to which Jennings has been appointed should not exist, but I have read nothing about him which should disqualify him for office (as opposed to any other Obamanoid), and I think the attacks on him are largely because of his homosexuality and because he is outspokenly supportive of gay -- as opposed to other -- rights. He founded GLSEN, and he's reported as saying this:

Twenty percent of people are hard-core fair-minded people. Twenty percent are hard-core bigots. We need to ignore the hard-core bigots, get more of the hard-core fair-minded people to speak up, and we'll pull that 60 percent ... over to our side. That's really what I think our strategy has to be. We have to quit being afraid of the religious right. We also have to quit -- ... I'm trying to find a way to say this. I'm trying not to say, '[F---] 'em!' which is what I want to say, because I don't care what they think! [audience laughter] Drop dead!9

As to the idea that he is "promoting homosexuality," of course he is. Feminists promote feminism, black activists promote being-blackness. It's the nature of identity politics, and while I can't stand identity politics, I think he is being singled out because his critics dislike gay identity politics with a particular passion. (In purely First Amendment terms, promoting what you believe in is rather mundane.)

Jennings is also reported to have not ratted on a teenager who confided in him that he'd cruised the T-rooms and picked up an older man. I wouldn't have either, and I don't think most people who understand the problems faced by gay teens would. Lending a sympathetic ear to a troubled teen and then not turning him in may be many things, but it is not pedophilia, and I don't even think it constitutes the promotion of homosexuality -- any more than the failure to rat a kid out who admits to smoking marijuana constitutes "promoting drug use."

Personally, I think it would have been unconscionable to rat out that teenager to meddlesome bureaucratic investigators, and it might have even caused him to consider suicide. (I speak from my life experience.)

Is the point debatable? Sure. But does it have to be my f-cking job? Why?

I do think that if Jennings is unfit for office, then so are virtually all gay activists. Considering the way "gay activist" reduces itself in some circles to any publicly gay person involved in politics, the message here seems to be that gays should not be appointed to political office, period.

If that's conservatism, then it's yet another reason to say I'll never be a conservative. In another post not worth writing.

So f-ck them. And f-ck the czars.

Even f-ck the gay czars.

AFTERTHOUGHT: There is a question I find more interesting than Jennings, and that is whether the Polanski extradition is intended as a distraction from Jennings.

I hope it isn't, because I thought the idea was that cynicism should be replaced by hope.

MORE: Via Glenn Reynolds, I see that Scott Ott takes a different view of Jennings, and says his failure to rat on the kid was criminal negligence.

If it was a crime, then the point about vetting is probably well taken, but I still think that reporting the kid that was described in that situation (who confided in someone he thought he could trust) would have been worse than not reporting him, and were I in the same position, not only I would never report him, but I'd prefer to be fired.

Which means that at this rate I'll never make Czar...

MORE: Regarding the assertion that the failure to report this constituted criminal negligence, unless my reading of the relevant Massachusetts statute is wrong, the penalty for non reporting is a fine, and there has to be "physical or emotional injury resulting from abuse inflicted upon him which causes harm or substantial risk of harm to the child's health or welfare including sexual abuse."

Any...[public or private public school teacher]...who, in his professional capacity shall have reasonable cause to believe that a child under the age of eighteen years is suffering physical or emotional injury resulting from abuse inflicted upon him which causes harm or substantial risk of harm to the child's health or welfare including sexual abuse, or from neglect, including malnutrition, or who is determined to be physically dependent upon an addictive drug at birth, shall immediately report such condition to the department by oral communication and by making a written report within forty-eight hours after such oral communication; provided, however, that whenever such person so required to report is a member of the staff of a medical or other public or private institution, school or facility, he shall immediately either notify the department or notify the person in charge of such institution, school or facility, or that person's designated agent, whereupon such person in charge or his said agent shall then become responsible to make the report in the manner required by this section. Any such hospital personnel preparing such report, may take or cause to be taken, photographs of the areas of trauma visible on a child who is the subject of such report without the consent of the child's parents or guardians. All such photographs or copies thereof shall be sent to the department together with such report. Any such person so required to make such oral and written reports who fails to do so shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars. Any person who knowingly files a report of child abuse that is frivolous shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars.

Said reports shall contain the names and addresses of the child and his parents or other person responsible for his care, if known; the child's age; the child's sex; the nature and extent of the child's injuries, abuse, maltreatment, or neglect, including any evidence of prior injuries, abuse, maltreatment, or neglect; the circumstances under which the person required to report first became aware of the child's injuries, abuse, maltreatment or neglect; whatever action, if any, was taken to treat, shelter, or otherwise assist the child; the name of the person or persons making such report; and any other information which the person reporting believes might be helpful in establishing the cause of the injuries; the identity of the person or persons responsible therefor; and such other information as shall be required by the department.

Sorry, but for the life of me I'm having a tough time seeing this kid as the "victim" of an "abuser" he sought out. I think the Jennings case touches on something I'm hesitant to blog about lest I be misunderstood, but I think there's a serious underlying problem with the way teenage minors are routinely being treated as if they are actual children. They are not children.

I'm not saying it should be legal to have sex with 15 year olds, but if a male of that age goes into, say, a Las Vegas brothel (in this case, it was a men's room of the sort where he knew homosexual activity was likely to be found), he is engaged in an adult activity -- every bit as much as if he shoots someone with a gun. To see him as a victim may be what the law dictates, but sorry, I think it is ridiculous. I will spare my readers a long post I could write about how some of my teenage peers used to victimize an older gay man by going to his place, beating him up, having sex with him, and stealing his drugs. They knew exactly what they were doing, and he went along with it because he was a masochistic old queen. To call him the abuser and them the victims is preposterous.

I'm not saying that sort of thing should be legal, but "child abuse"? Spare me.

And whether this "child" was sixteen also seems at least debatable. While I have not verified their claim (and cannot vouch for it) Media Matters claims to have proof that the "child" was 16 -- which is above the age of consent.

Jennings was 24 at the time he failed to turn his student in.

I don't like his politics, nor do I like the fact that the position he was given exists. But I think the way he's being treated as a pedophile stinks, and I find myself wondering whether his critics would be screaming the same way if he had failed to rat on a girl of the same age had she confided in him that she'd had an abortion or was on the pill.