But I am viewing some disturbing things from members of the lgbt community.
Now I am not saying that I agree with statutory rape, period. Nor am I trying to drum up defense for Jennings solely due to the fact that he is gay.
I sincerely believe that Jennings is getting a bad deal and I also believe that he is the best person for the position that he has been appointed to.
And it is with that same sincerity that I am calling out some folks for throwing in the towel already. I am hearing a few lgbts claiming that Jennings committed a crime and he has to go.
Now I have stated my opinion on Jennings and the alleged incident involving supposed statutory rape but in all honesty, none of us know the facts.
We don't know what was said exactly between Jennings and Brewster.
We don't know just how old the alleged adult was in the case.
And we don't know what exactly the law dictates in the matter.
But we do know that the forces involved don't like President Obama, Jennings, or lgbts in general.
We do know that these folks have been known to lie and distort.
We do know that they lied when they said Jennings "encouraged" the relationship. Hell, we don't even know if it was a "relationship" rather than a one-time mistake.
And we do know that they not only distorted the tape of Jennings talking about the incident, but have been enveloping Jennings with a tissue of lies from the very beginning in sleazy attempts to derail his appointment.
Now they are whining about a double standard regarding Jennings and Roman Polanski despite the fact that Polanski was convicted of a crime and we still are not aware that Jennings did anything wrong.
So why in the hell are some of us so quick to give in? Why are we so quick to give their distortion credibility? Shouldn't our loyalty be to Jennings?
I sincerely hope that this situation doesn't end like I think it will - with Jennings' dismissal and another embarrassment for the Obama Administration.
But if this happens, perhaps it will teach us something.
Maybe before we start whining about how Obama isn't doing enough for us, why don't we concentrate on doing for ourselves.
You can't expect loyalty for perceived allies if you are not willing to give it to members of your own community.
5 comments:
Alvin, you stated: "Shouldn't our loyalty be to Jennings?"
Simply put: no. Our loyalty in this matter should be to the ethical (and I'm assuming legal) standards that require teachers to inform authorities of suspected or confirmed child abuse (and that's what this case is about, the sexual abuse of a child as defined by law).
Until we KNOW all of the facts, our loyalty should be to Jennings from the reasons I outlined in this piece.
Ironically, I bet some people will misconstrue the subject of your post to think you have already given up on Jennings.
Your subject suggests that Obama would be in the right to dismiss Jennings, but a reading of your posts demonstrates you feel Jennings shouldn't be dismissed (based on what we know so far).
Just interesting how easy it is to sway words...
Dear Mr. Gillespie,
Your black and white analysis of what happened with Mr. Jenning's and his student has not been proven and therefore, has no validity. The student stated that the man was "older" but did not give an age. Obviously, this student was doing this on his own volition and was not being abused. Legally, if the "older man" was over 18, then it was sexual assault, not child abuse because the child in this case did not have legal age to consent even though it is obvious that his consent was given. The most that should have come out of this would have been a statutory rape case, if the child even knew the man's name. These types of cases where the child seeks out partners for sex are very complex. One reason I believe that the U.S. should change its age of consent laws to mirror the European model, age 16.
The student was of legal age, there was no child abuse.
Hat Tip, Media Matters who obtained his driver's license. The age of consent in Massachusetts then and now is 16 years old.
Post a Comment