Congressman
Mark Kirk, one of the Republican candidates for Senate to fill Barack
Obama's seat, has been "outed" by one of his primary opponents. Chicago
newspapers are rushing to condemn the accuser/candidate. So are
Republican leaders in the state. They are appalled by the accusation
and Congressman Kirk's campaign is declaring it "demeaning to the
political process."
I
don't remember any such outrage at the accusation of Governor Mark
Sanford for alleged adultery. I seem to remember newsmen and cameras
running to South America simply to confirm or deny. I don't remember
outrage over Senator Larry Craig and his "outing" for bathroom
flirtation, just more "investigating" to find the truth. The candidate
who "outed" Kirk is the least credible of those in the primary. His
record of outrageous claims makes it impossible to take him seriously
much less believe what he says. But in this case, press and Republicans
alike are rushing to pooh-pooh what, in spite of the weakness of the
messenger, has been the topic of discussion in Washington and elsewhere
for quite some time. So, where is the reporting? Where are the cameras?
The gleaning of records? The follow-up on accusations?
Republicans did the same thing in the Mark Foley/Congressional page
scandal. Republican leaders knew about Foley but for some inexplicable
reason, covered for him. Do they want to repeat the same here? Surely,
if Kirk is the candidate in the general election, the Democrats will
not be so benevolent. It was reported in the press that Kirk had a
lengthy meeting with Nancy Pelosi before voting for cap and trade. His
subsequent excuses for voting for this economically disastrous measure
were vague and contradictory. Was he blackmailed into support? And if
he was, then how could we be sure he wouldn't be in the future?
There are rumors of threats from Rahm Emmanuel of "outing" Kirk. It has
been reported that a sexual harassment lawsuit was filed against Kirk
by another male staffer when he worked for Congressman John Porter. Is
this true? And if so, could this be used against him to garner another
bad vote? It is reported that Kirk has been living with another
congressman, also strongly rumored to be gay. Is that true? Is anyone
investigating this? Are we just waiting for the Democratic opponent,
Alexi Giannoulias, to pull out the long knives and rush to victory in
November…or for Mark Kirk to take the seat and vote like any other
Leftist in the chamber?
American voters have a right to know if candidates are gay. Why?
(1)
Because Kevin Jennings, Obama's Safe School Czar, who has lived out his
endorsement of sex between adult men and boys, has received tacit
approval by elected officials. The openly homosexual Jennings has made
his life's work "Queering Elementary Education." The president
appointed him while Congress looked the other way. Safe, indeed.
(2) Because the hate crimes law, which brings a fuller weight of law
enforcement upon anyone perpetrating a crime against a homosexual and
brings more punishment upon those who would harm a gay man as opposed
to a grandmother or a young child, was established by elected
officials. And because, if it follows the path of hate crimes in other
countries, it will be the precursor to "Hate Speech" legislation —
punishing any verbal objection to homosexuality in media, on
billboards, and even in churches. And that too will be decided by
elected officials.
(3) Because homosexual marriage and civil unions and domestic
partnerships are the stuff of frequent legislative decisions and are
being foisted upon the American public, regardless of objections, by
their own elected officials.
(4) Because we are at war and the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is
a promise President Barack Obama has made to the gay community in spite
of the fact that military experts from the top down have argued
continually that open homosexuality will harm unit cohesion and have a
detrimental effect on morale. And who will repeal "Don't Ask, Don't
Tell?" Our elected officials.
It's
not good enough for Congressman Mark Kirk to claim his outing "demeans
the political process." He should answer the following questions, and
Republicans and press must follow through to confirm or deny his
answers:
(1) Are you gay?
(2) Have you been living with another homosexual congressman?
(3) Were you sued by another male staffer in John Porter's office for sexual harassment?
If
the answers are "yes," then Illinois voters who embrace homosexual
rights can give him the opportunity to represent those rights in the
U.S. Senate. If the answer is "no" and subsequent investigation
confirms it, the worry that he can be blackmailed or threatened will be
removed.
This much we know about Kirk: He voted both for hate crimes and ENDA
(the Employment Non-Discrimination Act). Human Rights Campaign, the
largest homosexual lobbying organization in the country, has given him
85 percent, 75 percent and 88 percent approval rating on his votes in
three consecutive congresses. Mike Rogers, the infamous homosexual
"outer" of gay Republicans, has stated clearly that he has not gone
after Kirk because Kirk has supported the homosexual community's issues.
He has not supported the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell." But if he
is gay, he would have a vested interest in this particular issue. As a
military reservist, he would have to resign his commission if he should
openly declare. Kirk's military service has been strongly appealing to
conservatives even though his military voting record is inconsistent.
He voted against the surge in Iraq and against enhanced interrogation
methods for terrorists, limiting the methods to the Army Field Manual.
And if he is "blackmail-able," how can we be assured he won't change
his position on this or any other measure?
Homosexuality has now been mainstreamed and de-stigmatized. Any reason
not to be open and honest has now been removed. If a candidate is gay,
the American voter has the right to know for all of the above reasons.
Congressman Mark Kirk, please answer these questions. Republican
leadership, if you are covering up things the public should know, stop
— or you will lose even more credibility with your base. And press? Do
your job. Your duty is not to defend a lifestyle; it is to report the
truth.
|
Sandy
Rios is host of the "Sandy Rios Show," heard weekdays from 3 to 5 p.m.
on WYLL AM1160 in Chicago, a FOX News contributor, and serves as
president of Culture Campaign,
a non-profit dedicated to awakening a sleeping army of concerned
citizens never before involved in public policy. This column is printed
with permission.
Opinions
expressed in 'Perspectives' columns published by OneNewsNow.com are the
sole responsibility of the article's author(s), or of the person(s) or
organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those
of the staff or management of, or advertisers who support the American
Family News Network, OneNewsNow.com, our parent organization or its
other affiliates.