By Michael F. Haverluck
Outspoken proponents of homosexuality – such as those who attack the CEO of Chick-fil-A for expressing his Christian faith – are remarkably quiet on the issue of former Penn State assistant coach Jerry Sandusky and the culture that helped foster his abuse of young boys, according to observers.
Are the activists intentionally staying low-key regarding the sexual abuse inflicted by the convicted PSU boy predator, or has their campaign just been too busy to take a strong stand on the matter?
Michael L. Brown, host of the nationally syndicated radio talk show “Line of Fire,” throws all his chips in on the former, contending the homosexual agenda’s silence during the trial was no mistake.
“To my knowledge, homosexual activists have been strangely silent over this case, and one reason could be that there is a much higher percentage — not total number — of homosexual pedophiles as compared to heterosexual pedophiles, while at the same time, some of the great gay icons in recent and past history have extolled ‘consensual pederasty’,” Brown said in an exclusive WND interview.
“This, then, is one of the dirty secrets in the homosexual activist movement, and [when] one has this in the closet, one is likely to keep that door closed.”
Brown said the stance is consistent with the homosexual community’s role in public schools for years.
“Also, since homosexual activists push so hard for Gay Straight Alliances in schools, many of which have clearly introduced younger gay boys to older gay men, it is difficult for gay activists to take the high moral ground when it comes to exposing and condemning Sandusky,” the conservative pundit contends.
The American Family Association of Pennsylvania concurs that concealment and silence were key in protecting homosexual behavior at Penn State.
The group alleges former Penn State President Graham Spanier supported the homosexual lifestyle on campus as never before. AFA President Diane Gramley recently cited the Freeh Sporkin & Sullivan report issued last month as confirmation of the silence that allowed homosexual behavior at the scandal-plagued university.
“There have been problems at Penn State for a long time, and this report finally reveals it for the world to see,” Gramley commented. “Under the leadership of Graham Spanier and the free rein the board of trustees gave him, Penn State has been traveling down the wrong road and needs to get back on course. The culture that was allowed to exist created the scandal, ignored the cries of innocent boys and hoped to keep it under wraps to protect the school’s reputation. Additionally, what cannot be ignored is the homosexual connection – all Sandusky’s victims were young boys.”
Spanier, still a tenured member of the Penn State faculty, has kept a relatively low profile since trustees terminated him as president.
“The Penn State scandal is on a smaller scale than the Catholic Church scandal of sexual abuse by priests, but the story line is much the same,” Gramley added. “For example, in the Sandusky case, all the victims were young boys and in the priest scandal the majority of victims were also young boys. In both situations, both Penn State and the church tried to cover up the abuse to protect its culture.”
She continued: “Penn State’s reputation has for many years been that of a university gone wild – willing to not only push liberalism, but indecency. The examples abound, yet the legislative body in Harrisburg, nor the board of trustees of Penn State, has been willing to do anything to stop forcing Pennsylvania taxpayers from funding this immorality.”
Brown said homosexual activists got what they wanted at Penn State.
The “news” page on the website for the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, or GLSEN, was devoid of any references to Sandusky, and other homosexual sites followed that example.
There was a reference in the Washington Blade by columnist Kevin Naff, who called the Sandusky case a “heartbreaking tragedy.”
He wrote, “This scandal isn’t about gay men; it’s about greed and a culture that prized money over doing the right thing.”
On the Yahoo Answers page about the case, a number of respondents blasted the idea that Sandusky was homosexual and preyed on young boys. Instead, they said he was a pedophile and “no LGBT, you idiot.”
But Brown said the history of homosexuals abusing young boys is long.
“Were the men who were sexually involved with Harvey Milk any better than Jerry Sandusky?” Brown asks, referring to the pioneer of homosexual politicians, Harvey Milk, a friend of the Rev. Jim Jones.
Brown notes that after Milk was fondled by men at the age of 11, he soon regularly took part in homosexual behavior, and when he was 33, he was sexually active with a 16-year-old boy.
“And can an 11-year-old give truly informed consent to such acts?”
Brown told how GLSEN provides school instruction celebrating famous homosexual pederasts Walt Whitman and Allen Ginsburg, a defender of the infamous NAMBLA or North American Man Boy Love Association. The conservative pundit further notes that GOProud, a political advocacy group of “gay” Republicans, celebrates the famous novelist Oscar Wilde as a stereotyped victim who was “locked in an asylum because he was gay.”
But Brown has another perspective, relating Wilde’s behavior to Sandusky’s.
“Would they also mention that he was a boy lover and that he wrote about his passionate sexual encounters with young teens no older than some of the boys molested by Sandusky?” Brown posed.
Brown argues that homosexual pedophilia is not dealt with as seriously in the courts because of the politically correct climate fostered by homosexual activists.
Brown was asked if Sandusky would have faced stronger charges if he committed the sexual crimes against female youth.
“I believe that Sandusky would have been exposed and reported much earlier had he been guilty of committing these acts with girls and young teens,” Brown asserted. “Could you imagine people witnessing his inappropriate relationships with girls without reporting him more promptly and more forcefully? Why then was there less outrage when the acts were between a man and a boy?”
Brown answered his own question.
“One reason would be that there could be the appeal to horseplay or roughing it up or the like. And within the context of his charitable organization, it was expected for him to be around boys, showing a real interest in them,” Brown posited before giving the main reason that is consistently avoided by the media. “The other reason is that to report a homosexual pedophile means to risk giving homosexuality a bad name, and one does not do that and emerge unscathed.”
He said history already shows that influence.
“There’s a case in England in which social workers were reluctant to pursue charges against a gay couple who had clearly been guilty of [sexually] violating the boys for whom they provided foster care, but the social workers did not want to appear to be homophobic by reporting them!” Brown exclaimed.