by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director
Ever since Mark Kirk announced his campaign seeking the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate seat in Illinois currently held by Roland Burris there have been many "rumors" regarding Kirk's sexual preferences. Indeed, these "rumors" have been around for years concerning Mark Kirk, but they have been dismissed because of Kirk's relatively low political profile. Journalistically, it would have been irresponsible of me to go with the story for a number of reasons.
Some have asked me why I did not address the allegations Kirk was possibly a homosexual and, for any honest journalist, the answer should be obvious. My reply was: If someone comes to me with incriminating evidence regarding Kirk's sexuality, I would consider it a story. It would take an individual coming forward with photos, videotapes, and/or communications back and forth indicating a homosexual relationship which Kirk took place in. My standards would have been very high before running with the story. Of course, this is in contrast to modern day journalism which has abandoned the true tenets of the profession. However, in many cases, the tabloids, including the National Enquirer, have been more accurate in their coverage of controversial issues. This is a sad statement when the tabloid press can be trusted more than the mainstream media. Yes, the tabloids have stories about UFO abductions, wild conspiracy theories and other issues meant to titillate the public.
However, in recent years, the mainstream media has sold its soul to political correctness, a left wing political agenda and what I call journalism by omission. For example, it took two individuals barely out of college to break the story which exposed the corruption within ACORN. Charlie Gibson, the former anchor of ABC News, when asked about the allegations of widespread corruption uncovered by the two twenty-something's responded by chuckling and saying, "we'll leave that story to cable." Gibson was inferring, for obvious political reasons, that the serious allegations surrounding ACORN had no merit.
Most Americans now agree the dominant media has a clear political agenda which led to the election of Barack Obama and, until this day, does its best to cover up stories that might reflect poorly on the Obama administration.
On Monday, December 28, 2009, Andy Martin, a candidate seeking the Republican senatorial nomination, created a firestorm when he brought the question regarding Mark Kirk's possible homosexuality to public light. Martin's radio ads are now running across the state and the subject matter of "rumors" about Kirk's alleged homosexuality went viral. In essence, Martin used a statement by a supporter of one of his Republican political opponents to breach the issue of the "rumors" which have dogged Kirk for years from GOP political insiders. The "rumors" of U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk's sexual preferences have been percolating just under the surface of the political ether. What Martin's ad accomplished is to force Kirk to address the subject.
Kirk, a U.S. Naval Intelligence Officer, is currently on active duty, which is very convenient for him in many ways. Being unavailable for comment, it allows his campaign team time to figure out a strategy to combat these allegations of homosexuality which, if true, would doom his U.S. Senate bid.
Yes, I know, what consenting adults do behind closed doors is something that has become sacrosanct in a politically correct world. At least that is the mainstream media's take on the subject, especially when it applies to Democrats. Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) actually lived in a home in which his same-sex partner was running a brothel for homosexuals. This is a fact, not a rumor, but if it were a Republican who was caught up in a similar situation, he would have disappeared from the political scene years ago.
Many agree the dominant media would like to see Mark Kirk win the Republican primary for the U.S. Senate. Kirk, who languished in virtual anonymity since he replaced long time Republican incumbent John Porter as the U.S. Representative for Illinois' 10th Congressional District, has suddenly received an inordinate amount of attention from the dominant press both in Illinois and nationally. Kirk, who is currently in his fifth term in the U.S. House of Reps., is widely portrayed as the clear frontrunner in the GOP primary for the U.S. Senate by the liberal mainstream media.
However, Kirk has come under withering fire from Illinois Republicans regarding his voting record. Yet clearly in violation of political protocol, individuals, including Illinois GOP Chairman Pat Brady, have openly endorsed Kirk's candidacy and encouraged Party leaders to follow suit. In actuality, the Republican establishment should not endorse a candidate before the Party's primary which, in this case, is on February 2nd of 2010. Brady should be neutral in this process, but there have been numerous circumstances when Kirk has been the obvious recipient of the Republican establishment's largesse. Kirk was even endorsed by national GOP Party Chairman Michael Steele, who later backed off his support for Kirk, after learning of the widespread animosity levied towards Kirk by both fiscal and social conservative Republicans in Illinois.
Kirk now finds himself in an untenable position. If Kirk came forward and admitted he is a homosexual, he would be in clear violation of the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding homosexuals openly serving as a member of the U.S. Armed Forces. Therefore, Kirk is painted in a political corner concerning this situation. Now that the question is out there regarding his sexual preferences, if Kirk is a homosexual, he cannot tell the truth because if he would do so, it would end his career in the Navy and essentially end his status as a viable candidate in Illinois' U.S. Senate race--no matter how tolerant American society is supposed to be regarding the subject of homosexuality.
Subsequently, one can look at Kirk's situation as being analogous from a legal perspective rather than the political. Can circumstantial evidence answer the questions which now haunt the minds of many Republican voters in Illinois regarding the "rumors" of Kirk's possible homosexual lifestyle?
Kirk's Voting Record On Issues Related To Homosexuality
How has Kirk voted on issues regarding legislation such as the recent hate crime bill signed into law by Barack Obama? Kirk was one of a handful of Republicans who openly supported a bill which might one day restrict First Amendment speech about the issue of homosexuality. For example, in some nations, under penalty of law, ministers can no longer quote Holy Scripture and the writings therein, citing homosexuality as an abomination to God. Many who are critical of the hate crimes law believe the slippery slope theory will one day take effect in the United States as well and those who oppose homosexuality on religious and moral grounds will be subject to fine and/or imprisonment.
Kirk is also a co-sponsor of ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act), legislation pending in the U.S. House of Reps. and the Senate that, if passed, would ban discrimination in the workplace based on a person's sexual orientation. ENDA would also protect lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual individuals. The bill would protect this group from discriminatory hiring, firing, promotion or compensation practices, as well as retaliation for reporting such practices.
The main sponsor of the House bill (H.R. 3017) is Barney Frank, an open homosexual with a radical agenda. Mark Kirk is only one of two Republicans who are co-sponsors of the legislation in Illinois, along with Judy Biggert (R-Naperville). Other Illinois U.S. Reps. who are co-sponsors of the bill include Danny Davis (D-Chicago), Bill Foster (D-St. Charles), Phil Hare (D-Belleville), Jesse Jackson (D-Chicago), Debbie Halvorson (D-Kankakee), Mike Quigley (D-Oak Park), Bobby Rush (D-Chicago) and Jane Schakowsky (D-Chicago).
In Illinois, Democratic Senators Roland Burris and Dick Durbin are co-sponsors of a version of the House bill (S.1584) which is virtually the same legislation.
Kirk has also been a favorite of Log Cabin Republicans, a single-issue organization devoted to the promotion of the radical homosexual agenda. They have supported Kirk throughout his entire political career. One must look for the quid pro quo regarding the Log Cabin Republicans endorsement of Mark Kirk.
Soon, the Obama administration will make an effort to rescind the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy which currently exists regarding members of the U.S. Armed Forces. Obama made this promise during the run up to his election to the presidency in 2008. The "Don't ask, don't tell" policy, which was first put in place by the Clinton administration, would essentially allow homosexuals to openly serve in the military. This would be a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and it would take an act of Congress to change federal law regarding this issue which is clearly a priority on Obama's agenda.
Many political observers believe the current administration will attempt to lift the restrictions on homosexuals openly serving in the U.S. Armed Forces after the health care reform bill is either passed or defeated and Obama makes an effort to ram through Cap and Trade legislation--which many experts agree would devastate America's already depressed economy. Mark Kirk was one of eight Republicans who voted for Cap and Trade in the House of Reps. which passed the legislative body earlier this year. After receiving devastating criticism from the Republican faithful, Kirk now says he would change his vote on Cap and Trade--if he had the chance to vote on the legislation again.
But the underlying question is: Has Kirk promised groups, including the Log Cabin Republicans, that he would support Obama's rescinding of the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy which is currently in force.
Finally, Mark Kirk is the only Republican seeking the nomination for the U.S. Senate from Illinois who did not fill out a questionnaire from the Illinois Family Institute (IFI) for use in the not-for-profit group's non-partisan voter guides. Some of the questions addressed on the pro-family organization's questionnaire which Kirk refused to fill out involved his position on legislation which will directly have influence on pending bills directly related to the homosexual agenda.
Certainly, this is all circumstantial evidence which does not prove Kirk is a homosexual. But, right or wrong, reasonable individuals may connect the dots on the issues, since the question of Kirk's sexual preferences have come to light.
The Mainstream Media's Agenda
Why would the liberal mainstream media want Mark Kirk to win the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate in Illinois? After all, the dominant press has also been well aware of the allegations regarding Kirk's possible homosexuality for years. In Washington, D.C., the allegations regarding Kirk's sexuality are an open secret. In essence, liberal members of the dominant press would not pursue the issue concerning Kirk's sexuality--until he would have won the GOP nomination. But it is a fait accompli that if Kirk wins the Illinois Republican primary and becomes the Party's candidate in the 2010 general election for the U.S. Senate, Kirk's Democratic opponent, whoever that may be, would be aided by the liberal press who would doggedly pursue the "rumors" in search of evidence regarding Kirk's sexual preferences. If the allegations are proven to be true, this would virtually guarantee a Democratic victory in an election year when the Democratic Party is widely predicted to suffer huge losses in the Senate and, especially, the House of Representatives.
Moral & Political Implications
But there is a question that looms over this issue like the Sword of Damocles. I personally believe what consenting adults do behind closed doors is between them and God. However, this moral and Biblical standard does not apply when it comes to those seeking political office. It would be naive to believe one's personal behavior would not bleed over into their duties as an elected official who has been given the authority to represent their constituency. After all, Kirk himself admits he voted in favor of Cap and Trade because this, supposedly, represented the views of those in Illinois' 10th Congressional District.
If Kirk is indeed a homosexual, it would be reasonable to suggest he would have empathy concerning the homosexual agenda which impacts not only Illinois, but our nation as well. If elected to the Senate, Kirk would be given the power to sponsor, endorse and eventually vote for issues which are not consistent with both the state and national Republican Party platforms. Therefore, the question regarding whether or not Kirk is a homosexual is germane.
The political realities regarding the subject of homosexuality breached in Andy Martin's radio ads bring into serious question whether Kirk is indeed the frontrunner for the GOP nomination to the U.S. Senate in Illinois, no matter what the state's Republican establishment or the mainstream media says concerning the issue.
Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact: [email protected]
NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected. No hyperlinks allowed.
Disgraceful piece.
Even for a right-winger.
As long as the likes of the writer continue to dominate the GOP, Republicans will wander in the political wilderness for many, many years.
Posted by: jwhelan | December 30, 2009 at 12:54 PM
I am so very tired with this radical, small (2% of the population) group of activists bending the nation to their will. Enough is enough.
Homosexual activists decry people who vote against one of their candidates simply because of their homosexuality, and holler the "bigot" label as fast as the roadrunner can scoot. yet they tend to vote as a block for their gay candidate, regardless of that candidates other credentials and qualifications. All that is important is that they are gay.
This behavior, in my opinion, opens the door for non-homosexuals to fairly vote AGAINST a gay candidate simply because they are gay. In Houston, for example, a gay candidate ran for Mayor; she seemed to have good credentials. Had I been a Houston voter, though, I would have supported her opponent simply because the gay activists already control too much of the Board of Supervisors, and adding a gay Mayor would have given the 2% minority too much clout.
On top of that - I NO LONGER CARE IF THE GAY ACTIVISTS SLUR ME WITH WHATEVER LABEL THEY WISH. This activist group has simply over-reached. No mas!
Posted by: Doug InSanDiego | December 30, 2009 at 01:34 PM