Left’s New Crusade: Adult-Kid Sex

So much for the left’s “consenting adults” rhetoric on sex. Forever the consummate conservationists, our self-described “progressive” friends at the American Civil Liberties Union, MSNBC and elsewhere have been ramping up efforts to downsize from “consenting adults” to merely “consenting”—a far less cumbersome qualifier in the noble struggle for unrestrained sexual license.

Tolerating “intergenerational romance” for “minor-attracted” adults is all the rage these days.

Ever hear of Kaitlyn Hunt? Over the past year or so, this poor, misunderstood lesbian woman’s “anti-gay persecution” has become a cause célèbre among gay rights activists and other left-wing purveyors of perversion.

Despite mass rallies and online petitions signed by hundreds of thousands of the uber-“tolerant,” the clearly “homophobic” Florida criminal justice system has, nonetheless, convicted Ms. Hunt of multiple felonies for sexually assaulting—repeatedly—a 14-year-old girl.

Puritans.

Oh, sure, her minor victim allegedly “consented” to what the “Free Kate” crowd has portrayed as a harmless tryst—but, of course, by law children below the age of consent cannot consent to sex with adults. Period.

Still, the “progressive” establishment evidently felt that, for whatever reason, this was their hill to die on. This was the case that might help them realize the historical gay rights goal of rolling back most, if not all, age-of-consent laws—statutes designed to protect children from adult sexual predators like, well, Kate.

Veteran journalist Robert Stacy McCain has covered the Hunt case extensively. In a recent piece for the American Spectator headlined “Kaitlyn Hunt Is Guilty and, Yes, There Is a Movement to ‘Normalize Pedophilia,’” McCain writes, “Kaitlyn Hunt is a criminal. We can state that as a Neutral Objective Fact, now that the 19-year-old former cheerleader has pleaded ‘no contest’ to multiple felonies related to her sexual affair with a minor. What remains is the question of what her plea in a Florida courtroom Thursday means for what Rush Limbaugh has called the movement to ‘normalize pedophilia.'”

Here’s the answer: There is no question. There is categorically a movement to normalize pedophilia. I’ve witnessed it firsthand and, despite “progressive” protestations to the contrary, the “pedophile rights” movement is inexorably linked to the so-called “gay rights” movement.

Two years ago, I—along with the venerable child advocate Dr. Judith Reisman—attended a Maryland conference hosted by the pedophile group B4U-ACT. Around 50 individuals were in attendance, including a number of admitted pedophiles (or “minor-attracted persons,” as they euphemistically prefer).

Also present were a few self-described “gay activists” and several supportive mental-health professionals. World-renowned sexologist Dr. Fred Berlin of Johns Hopkins University gave the keynote address, opening with: “I want to completely support the goal of B4U-ACT.”

Here are some highlights from the conference:

Pedophiles are “unfairly stigmatized and demonized” by society.
“We are not required to interfere with or inhibit our child’s sexuality.”
“Children are not inherently unable to consent” to sex with an adult.
An adult’s desire to have sex with children is “normative.”
“These things are not black and white; there are various shades of gray.”
A consensus belief by both speakers and pedophiles in attendance was that, because it vilifies MAPs, pedophilia should be removed as a mental disorder from the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM, in the same manner homosexuality was removed in 1973.
Dr. Fred Berlin acknowledged that it was political activism, similar to the incremental strategy witnessed at the conference, rather than a scientific calculus that successfully led to the declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder. The reason “homosexuality was taken out of [the] DSM is that people didn’t want the government in the bedroom,” he said.
The DSM ignores that pedophiles “have feelings of love and romance for children” in the same way adults love one another.
The DSM should “focus on the needs” of the pedophile and should have “a minimal focus on social control” rather than obsessing about the “need to protect children.”
Self-described gay activist and speaker Jacob Breslow said that children can properly be “the object of our attraction.” He further objectified children, suggesting that pedophiles needn’t gain consent from a child to have sex with “it” any more than we need consent from a shoe to wear it. He then used graphic, slang language to favorably describe the act of climaxing (ejaculating) “on or with” a child. No one in attendance objected to this explicit depiction of child sexual assault. There was even laughter.

You may think that such abject evil simply represents the fringe of today’s sexual “progressivism.” It doesn’t. It represents the honest.

Consider, for instance, that during Obama’s first term, the official website for the Department of Health and Human Services linked to “parenting tips” that referenced children as “sexual beings” and suggested that they should experiment with homosexuality and masturbation.

You may also recall that Mr. Obama appointed Kevin Jennings, founder of the Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) to the post of “safe schools czar.” The position is now defunct, ostensibly due to national outrage over Jennings’ appointment.

In keeping with the thinly veiled goals of B4U-ACT, GLSEN seems to be running interference for pedophiles, having tacitly advocated adult-child sex through its “recommended reading list” for kids.

This of no surprise when you consider that one of Jennings’ ideological heroes was Harry Hay, the founding father of homosexual activism. “One of the people that’s always inspired me is Harry Hay,” Jennings has said glowingly.

Was Harry Hay fringe? No, not among gay activists. He’s an icon. Again, he was just honest. In 1983, while addressing the pedophile North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAM/BLA), Hay said the following:

“It seems to me that in the gay community the people who should be running interference for NAM/BLA are the parents and friends of gays. Because if the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what 13-, 14-, and 15-year-old kids need more than anything else in the world. And they would be welcoming this, and welcoming the opportunity for young gay kids to have the kind of experience that they would need.”

If he were alive today, Harry Hay would likely have led the movement to “free Kate.”

And by “free Kate,” he would have meant—and they actually mean—“free us.”

And by “free us,” of course, what they really mean is “free children.”

Matt Barber (@jmattbarber on Twitter) is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as vice president of Liberty Counsel Action.