DISQUS

a. mcewen · 2 months ago

You have no idea how much of a good mood this puts me in. On my blog, I have been covering the Jennings mess in detail and was feeling a bit down. Some gays I know were actually buying into the lie that Jennings "counseled an underaged child into sex."

I kept telling them to think of the source of the lies and wait until until more is known. But they were so pompous that they refused to listen.

And it made me wonder how could we give Obama hell for supposedly deserting us when we seem to be deserting our own.

It feels good when you have faith and find that faith vindicated.

Blueflash · 2 months ago

Were those "gays" you know just self-professed "internet" gays? It's not uncommon now for anti-gay haters to claim they're gay in order to give a certain legitimacy to their underhanded promotion of ugly gay stereotypes.

a. mcewen · 2 months ago

naw. one was a friend of mine. this entire thing kinda destroyed our friendship.

Blueflash · 2 months ago

Naw? That's it? Not a normal gay response. Maybe you're taking what I described to a new level.

Blueflash · 2 months ago

PS. There are always gay bars if you ever manage to screw up the courage.

patb2009 · 2 months ago

Pity they didn't do this for Van Jones.

Obviously Jennings is popular with Rahm and
Jones wasn't

Vanduh · 2 months ago

Wasn't much they could do for a racist and a communist.

JohnnyG · 2 months ago

I don't like the vagueness about whether the young man was legally able to consent to sex with an adult though. I assume he was, and this report says that Jennings *seems* to indicate he was. Until it's reported as definitive fact though, the question will remain up in the air and reich-wingers will be able to continue to accuse Jennings of protecting a child molester. We need a concrete determination of the young man's age at the time, and whether he was of legal age of consent according to the laws of his state.

Blueflash · 2 months ago

If CNN says it "seems" he was not a minor you can pretty well bet he wasn't. They're not known for going out on a limb against the religious right. It's more than likely that this is all the fundie haters have been able to come up with so far to "smear this queer".

JohnnyG · 2 months ago

They're not known for going out on a limb against the religious right."

But some news organization is going to have to. The key point in all of this is the individual was old enough to consent according to the laws of his state. Until that's reported as fact, I don't see how the story is going to be debunked. I hope I'm wrong and the CNN report is a sign the mainstream media will just drop it knowing it's a false charge.

zorbear · 2 months ago

Ever see the Simpson's episode where they go to Australia and Marge tries to order coffee? The man behind the counter says "Right - one beer coming up. She says, "no, cof-fee." He says "Be - er". She says "C", he says "B", etc.

That's the Rethuglicans. Say Gay, they say liberal, or pedophile, or the end of civilization as we know it [which is their code for all things bad, or more simply: satan]. Say obama, they say [satan], say liberal, they say [satan]. No mater what you say, they think the world (their world, at least) is coming to an end.

This is not going to change. You cannot have a "meaninful dialogue" with a crocodile. You stick your hand down his throat at your own peril.

PJB863 · 2 months ago

Where was the right-wing outrage when Mike Brown, Bush's appointee to head FEMA, turned out to have no qualifications for the job, while thousands in New Orleans suffered and died? The White House response at the time? "You're doing a heck of a job, Brownie."

The allegations against what Jennings may or may not have done go back 21 years! Or was that a "youthful indiscretion," as Henry Hyde referred to his own peccadilloes at age 41? The upshot of this whole non-scandal is that the kid was of legal age at the time!

The right-wing is applying a double standard here. They need to be called on it. They need to go to the woodshed over it.

AdamBlast · 2 months ago

Great job by Jessica Yellin, and really heartening considering I've been thinking he's already toast... I wonder if Dobbs is going to back off or simply ignore Yellin's reporting.

Cruzer · 2 months ago

He describes this incident in a 1994 book called “One Teacher In 10” and he has also described the incident in a speech. He has never denied the boy –a high sophomore more --was a minor –in MA, he would have to be 16 to consent to sex with a minor (16-18) and 18 to consent to sex with an adult male.
I do no know where CNN got the information that there was “some doubt” about the boy’s age—it certainly did come from Jennings and they did not offer an explanation. Is this really the kind of guy you want in charge of “safe schools”? If this guy stays put the incident will be brought up over and over. Nothing about this incident was "debunked" -- even Jennings does not deny it.

a. mcewen · 2 months ago

the story was debunked. the young man was of legal age - http://mediamatters.org/research/200909300050

if it continues to be brought up, its only because the right will continue to lie with impunity.

Cruzer · 2 months ago

He may very well have been 16. In MA, where I have lived, that is the age of consent. That means he can have sex with other minors--age 16 to 18. It does not mean that an adult --18 or over can legally have sex with a minor. That is still illegal in MA they will Prosecute. I am not a social conservative but I would not let this guy run a czar post--he at least admits a "lapse in judgement" so he knows he was wrong.

JohnnyG · 2 months ago

"That means he can have sex with other minors--age 16 to 18. It does not mean that an adult --18 or over can legally have sex with a minor."

That's simply false. When the age of consent is determined to be 16, it is legal for 16 yr olds to have consensual sex with anyone over 16. It's just as arbitrary to determine 18 to be the age of consent, as it is 16. Neither age is a more valid determination of adulthood than the other. You may be shocked to learn it's legal in many states for 16 yr olds to consent to sex with people over 18, but it's really pretty ignorant for you to be unaware of that.

Cruzer · 2 months ago

You are wrong about MA law--the age of consent law does not allow adults to have sex with minors. If one of the parties is over the age of majority MA will and has prosecuted. The "Chaste" clause is up for interpretation but it is there to protect minors from your standard Roman Polanski types.

Appreciate your comments but age of consent laws are widely published and they should shock no one.

The age of consent in Massachusetts is 16, as specified by Chapter 265, Section 23 of the General Laws of Massachusetts, which states:

"Whoever unlawfully has sexual intercourse or unnatural sexual intercourse, and abuses a child under sixteen years of age shall... be punished..." MGL 265-23
However, Chapter 272, Section 4 sets another age of consent at 18 when the "victim" be "of chaste life" and the perpetrator induces them.

"Whoever induces any person under 18 years of age of chaste life to have unlawful sexual intercourse shall be punished." MGL 272

Jay · 2 months ago

Cruzer, you are misinformed. I am a Massachusetts resident and have served a 3-month term on a grand jury, where we were given very specific training in this area by the DA's office. The age of consent for sexual intercourse in Massachusetts is 16. A 100-year-old man could have consensual sex with a 16-year-old boy and there would be no crime.

Regarding Chapter 272 Section 4 (the "chaste" law): this section does not define another age of consent. What it's saying is that if someone has "unlawful sexual intercourse" (e.g. rape or adultery) with a "chaste" minor, then the perpetrator will also be guilty of violating this section. Basically it's an additional "virgin penalty" on top of whatever crime the person is already being charged with. Because the definition of "chaste" is so nebulous, this law has been determined to be unconstitutionally vague. According to the state law library, nobody who had sex with a 16 or 17-year-old has ever been charged with violating this law. The only person charged under this law was a man who tried to persuade a 14-year-old boy to have sex with him.

Cruzer · 2 months ago

Section 272 is intentionally nebulous and has never been shown to be unconstitutional. It is still on the books and it can and has been used.

State:
Massachusetts
Question:
If you are sixteen in massachusetts and you have sex with someone over the age of 18, can the state press charges on the other person?

Answer:
Yes. The state can press charges.

Chapter 272 Section 4. Inducing person under 18 to have sexual Intercourse.

Whoever induces any person under 18 years of age of chaste life to have unlawful sexual intercourse shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than three years or in a jail or house of correction for not more than two and one-half years or by a fine of not more than $1,000 or by both such fine and imprisonment.

Keori · 2 months ago

And just what exactly was he going to do? Waltz into the nearest police precinct with the kid in tow and announce that someone, somewhere, had had sex with him? Whom exactly would be charged with this statutory rape? An anonymous guy in a bus station bathroom whose name the kid didn't know or wouldn't give up? I'm sure that would be just peachy with law enforcement. "Sorry, officers, I don't know exactly where it happened or the guy's name, but SOMEONE in a city of half a million people had sex with this kid! Find him and bring him to justice!"

Christ. Why not just throw the kid in an interrogation room so the cops could beat down another fag while he's at it? This was in the late 80s, during an exponential uptick in antigay violent hate crimes, mostly due to the christian hate bloc and AIDS hysteria. If you honestly, truly believe that saying anything to anyone about a 16 year old hooking up with a stranger in the bathroom was going to do anyone any good, you're more tragically stupid than you appear.

Want to be outraged about officials not protecting children? Here. Have at it. Go get your fake concerned outrage porn on over actual child molesters.

http://www.republicansexoffenders.com/

Cruzer · 2 months ago

Might agree with that but he took the job and he knew the rules. If he didn't want to blow the whistle he should have quit.
The crazy thing about it is nobody would have known about this if he had left it out of his book and speeches.

Appreciate your link but it is not a partisan issue with me--I think his job requires him to be overzealous when it comes to protecting kids, if necessary and clearly he cannot do this. I do not consider him to be sex offender and while I do not agree with some of his opinions the Democrats won the election and those opinions are entitled to be heard--but not by Jenningss