The ACLU and NAMBLA

Why is the ACLU constantly on the twisted and lurid side? It has nothing to do with liberty, and everything to do with a warped ideology.

On October 1, 1997, two men lured [ten-year-old Jeffrey] Curley into a car in Boston, and, when Jeffrey fought their sexual advances, he was gagged, murdered, and brutalized.

There is nothing and everything to say about Curley's death. I won't recount the details of his assault, but I will say that words cannot describe what those monsters in Boston did to him. Jeffrey has passed on to something better now, and the men who murdered him have been locked away; but for Jeffrey's parents, at least one fight remains.

You see, the ACLU has taken up the defense of the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) in a civil suit filed by Mr. and Mrs. Robert Curley. The Curleys claim that the murderer of their son, Charles Jaynes, was driven by NAMBLA materials to murder, and the Curleys claim that NAMBLA bears at least some responsibility for his action.

Link.

We can't comment on the validity of the lawsuit. It might be bogus, it might be strong. But the ACLU defending NAMBLA? Why? So they can continue to promote homosexual sex with children? That is, after all, the whole point of the North American Man-Boy Love Association. That's the freedom the ACLU wants to protect?

Yup. And it speaks loudly about the ACLU. It, of course, relishes its "beyond the mainstream" reputation, but as the mainstream has drifted leftward with its morals over the past forty years, the ACLU, to keep outside of the mainstream, has drifted beyond any moral norms whatsoever to the despicable and criminal.