Mark Kirk has a radical pro-abortion and pro-homosexual-agenda voting record, so most conservatives are not enthused about him becoming the next U.S. Senator from Illinois.

Dear RFFV Readers,

We’re back! With this post by my friend Laurie Higgins, Republicans for Family Values (www.rffv.org) is reactivating after a long silence — just in time for primary elections. The case of Congressman Mark Kirk running as a Republican for U.S. Senate in Illinois is a troubling one: here’s a fellow who voted AGAINST banning partial-birth abortion — and then rationalized the vote to party VIPs and activists as one necessitated by his liberal district (suburbs north of Chicago).

I don’t know which is more pathetic: Kirk’s pandering to pro-abortion feminists, leading him to miss an opportunity to criminalize de facto infanticide; or his sorry attempt to justify it politically. I realize most pseudo-compassionate left-wingers are heartless when it comes to the defenseless unborn, but is there really any congressional district so liberal that it necessitates protecting the gruesome practice of piercing the skull of a late-term unborn baby fully capable of living outside the womb so as to end its (inconvenient) life? Shame on you, Mark!

On the “gay” front, Mr. “Real Integrity” (a Kirk radio ad extols him as a “leader with real integrity”) is one of the most pro-homosexual-agenda of all the Republican legislators on Capitol Hill. According to the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s most powerful homosexual lobby group, Kirk has the following rankings for the last three Congresses (voting with HRC’s misguided agenda) : 85%, 575 and 88% in the 110th, 109th and 108th Congresses, respectively.

In contrast, fellow Illinois Congressman Peter Roskam, also a Republican, has an HRC ranking of zero percent in the 110th Congress (his debut term).

This may explain why radical homosexual “outers” like Mike Rogers are in no hurry to talk about Kirk’s sexual proclivities, since they focus more on secretly homosexual Republicans who have a strong “pro-family” voting record. Of course, as Higgins writes, this would influence a “Senator Kirk” to continue voting pro-homosexual while the “gay” pressure ratchets up for him to reverse his few pro-family votes on the issue as his profile grows in Washington.

Anyway, with Republicans like Kirk in the nation’s capital, who needs Democrats? And Higgins is correct: if Kirk has a personal homosexual issue in his life — I would call it a problem — don’t the voters have a right to know given his radically pro-homosexual voting record ? You bet they do. – Peter LaBarbera, www.RepublicansForFamilyValues.com

_______________________________________________

Mark Kirk’s weaselly denial is very Clintonesque

Posted: January 08, 2010

By Laurie Higgins

I taped the Channel 5 news last night [Jan 7], and was mesmerized by Mark Kirk’s performance in the brief excerpt Channel 5 aired in which he decidedly did not deny that he’s homosexual. He used quintessential weasel words in his non-denial, which should infuriate all Illinoisans who believe that engaging in volitional homosexual acts constitutes a character issue and one which very likely influences the policy decisions of legislators.

Here’s Kirk’s exact statement: “It’s ironic that I was there fighting for his rights while he was using his free speech rights to say things which were untrue.”

This is a clever (or not so clever) way of appearing to deny the claim that he is homosexual while never actually denying the claim. He simply referred to “things that were untrue,” which could be any number of things that Andy Martin said.

It’s the same kind of weaselly non-denial as the one issued by Kirk’s campaign in which they said Andy Martin’s ad was untrue, which, of course, is entirely different from saying that Kirk is not homosexual. If at some later time, Kirk and his disciples are compelled to acknowledge that he is, indeed, homosexual, this squishy, expansive marshmallow rhetoric provides the cover they need. It allows Kirk and company to say, for example, that the” untrue things” were Martin’s claim that Raymond True says Kirk has surrounded himself with homosexuals. Kirk seems to be cut from the same weasel cloth as the weasel who infamously said, “I did not have sex with that woman,” and “that depends on what the definition of the word ‘is’ is.”

The indignant huffing and puffing of pundits and politicians on both the left and the right about Martin’s public question strikes me as both amusing and utterly hypocritical. Many of these self-same arbiters of social decorum have been talking about Kirk’s alleged homosexuality for years, and then in high dudgeon they moralistically condemn Martin for publicly discussing the same topic. Granted, due to a history of unsavory actions, Martin makes an easy target, but how about a modicum of truth from the press and our elected officials.

I first heard the Kirk rumor over a year ago from a good friend who worked closely with a current U.S. congresswoman. I was told that it is “well-known secret that Mark Kirk is gay.” It seems that the only people who haven’t heard this well-known secret are those who are asked to vote for him.

The “sexual orientation” of our legislators is relevant for it tells us precisely what they hold to be true about the nature and morality of homosexuality which will likely shape their policy decisions. Those who claim “sexual orientation” is irrelevant are usually those who hold the arguable theories that homosexuality is ontologically equivalent to race and morally equivalent to heterosexuality. Kirk’s distinctly un-Republican voting record on issues related to homosexuality could be explained by his philosophical views and sexual proclivities.

And concealed homosexuality is relevant because it opens up legislators to blackmail: vote a certain way or be outed.

I have heard that Kirk was asked directly by reporters if he is “gay” to which he said “no.” Due, however to some of his and his campaign’s equivocal answers, and the pervasiveness and longevity of the rumors, and the overwhelming disincentives Kirk has to an admission that he is homosexual, the wannabe lawyer in me would be more reassured if Kirk were to say in a written statement “I have never engaged in homosexual activity.” I know, I know, very McCarthy-esque. But after Bill Clinton’s deceit and Mark Foley’s deceit and Larry Craig’s deceit, we can never be too circumspect or precise. One thing the Republican Party does not need is another sex scandal-or another vote that affirms the social and political goals of homosexuals.

Some of Kirk’s evasive, obfuscatory statements have not only intensified questions about his sexual proclivities, but left me with serious doubts about his capacity for unequivocal, unambiguous truth-telling.

Laurie Higgins is the Director of the Division of School Advocacy at the Illinois Family Institute. This article represents her views as an individual and not necessarily those of IFI.

Obama’s San Francisco Values?  Matt Barber argues that Barack Obama’s pro-homosexual positions — including his call for a full repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA, which Joe Biden voted for and which Bill Clinton signed into law) — have far more in common with the radical sexual ethos of the nation’s “queer” Mecca than with the Middle America Obama claims to represent. At left, “Sister Mary [F-cking] Poppins,” one of the male-homosexual-drag-queen mock “nuns” of the “Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence” — a San Francisco-based “charity” group despised by many Catholics but adored by the city’s homosexuals — poses for a photo at the Folsom Street Fair. Folsom is a pornographic, nudity-filled, outdoor sadomasochistic celebration that draws hundreds of thousands of visitors annually to the Bay city. Click on photo to enlarge.

_________________________

By Matt Barber

If Bill Clinton was the first black president, Barack Obama, if elected, will be the first “gay” president. No, I don’t mean he’ll personally decorate the West Wing, open a bathhouse in the Rose Garden or take up with Barney Frank. I mean he’ll be the most radically pro-homosexual, anti-family president in history. He’s very quietly pledged as much to the homosexual “Human Rights Campaign” and other fawning members of his homofascist fan club.

In the wake of the current economic crisis, neither presidential candidate is talking much about social issues. But in the months and years preceding this election cycle, Obama did plenty of talking. Unfortunately, most people have no idea what he’s said. If the mainstream media would do its job, quit shilling for their ideological messiah and objectively report on Obama’s unwavering fidelity to extremist homosexual pressure groups, many of his unsuspecting supporters might kick him to the curb.

You may have heard the term “San Francisco values” bandied about from time to time. These values do not so much derive from a geographical locale as they do from a shared, deeply engrained “progressive” worldview – a worldview marbled throughout in murky tones of secular humanism and moral relativism. Central to San Francisco values is the notion that the only thing immoral is to believe there are things immoral.

While Barack Obama may hail from Illinois, Hawaii, Kenya or wherever, his set of core principles – his values – discernibly stem from the underbelly of San Francisco’s hyper-sexualized Castro District. The very San Francisco values that brought you the behaviorally driven homosexual AIDS epidemic, San Francisco’s public Folsom Street orgy and the preposterous and oxymoronic notion of “gay marriage” are the same values embraced by both homosexual activists and Obama, the latest politico to make ‘em light in their loafers.

Still, don’t take my word for it. Obama’s own words betray his veiled extremism. Despite a series of utterly hollow and politically expedient platitudes to the contrary, the overwhelming weight of the evidence indicates that Barack Obama fully endorses the postmodern concept of “same-sex marriage.” He’s promised homosexual activists – in hushed tones – that if elected, he’ll do everything possible to make it happen.

The only thing keeping counterfeit “gay marriage” from spreading state-to-state is the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Due to the U.S. Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause – which requires that states respect the “public acts, records, and judicial rulings” of other states – “gay marriage,” without DOMA, becomes a communicable social malady. DOMA is a boost of penicillin in America’s arm. It inoculates states from being forced to recognize counterfeit marriages from other states like California, Massachusetts or Connecticut.

In 2004, Obama called DOMA an “abhorrent law” and said, “The repeal of DOMA is essential. … For the record,” he continued, “I opposed DOMA in 1996. It should be repealed and I will vote for its repeal on the Senate floor. I will also oppose any proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gays and lesbians from marrying.” Obama also came out earlier this year in favor of the May 15 California Supreme Court decision that unilaterally redefined natural marriage in that state to include same-sex duos. “I want to congratulate all of you who have shown your love for each other by getting married these last few weeks,” Obama gushed. Despite assurances otherwise, these are not the words or policies of a man who opposes “same-sex marriage.”

But Obama’s contempt for the sanctity of natural marriage is only the beginning. As a candidate for the highest office in the land, his hostility toward the tens of millions of Americans who respect traditional sexual morality is unprecedented. He has enthusiastically signed off on every demand of militant homosexual pressure groups. Said Obama, “We must be careful to keep our eyes on the prize – equal rights for every American. We must continue to fight for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). We must vigorously expand hate-crime legislation and be vigilant about how these laws are enforced. We must continue to expand adoption rights to make them consistent and seamless throughout all 50 states, and we must repeal the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ military policy.”

So, let’s break it down. If elected, Obama has promised to sign radical thought-crimes legislation into law, effectively criminalizing respect for biblical morality. These laws would punish those who oppose sexual behaviors that every major world religion, thousands of years of history and uncompromising human biology have coldly rejected.

ENDA and “hate-crimes” legislation will unconstitutionally compel Christians and other people with traditional values to abandon those beliefs and adopt – under penalty of law – the postmodern “anything goes” view of human sexuality. Such “sexual orientation” laws have been the precursor to even more oppressive “hate-speech” laws in Canada, Great Britain and throughout Europe. But as Obama has signaled, these laws will not remain confined to his beloved Europe. There is little doubt that such laws will be similarly enforced here in the U.S under his administration. If you happen to believe that God created human sexuality to be shared between husband and wife within the bonds of marriage, you’d better not say so or you’ll suffer very real consequences.

Still, Obama’s loyalty to America’s sexual anarchists doesn’t stop there. He’s additionally sworn to turn the U.S. military into a cultural petri dish. Having no military experience of his own, he would nonetheless arrogantly disregard the vast majority of our military leaders and allow open homosexuals and cross-dressers to infiltrate the ranks of the armed forces – during a time of war – thereby disrupting military readiness and unit cohesion. To use the armed forces for such radical social experimentation is both dangerous and gravely irresponsible.

Finally, Obama’s promise to require “gay” adoption in all 50 states is particularly troubling. Here, his blind arrogance billows over. Once again he and his homosexual activist cohorts presume to know better than both God and science. As if common sense weren’t enough, studies have firmly established that children are best served with both a mother and a father. Although it’s not always possible, mom and dad each provide unique qualities vital in healthy child development. To selfishly place untold thousands of children in intentionally motherless or fatherless homes so that Chad and Thad can dress up and play house represents the height of narcissism.

So yes, if elected, Barack Obama – the “change candidate” – will undoubtedly live up to his name. He will certainly institute sweeping change over the next four to eight years. But as you walk into that voting booth on Nov. 4, consider whether Obama’s brand of change is change America can afford. Because isn’t change – for the mere sake of change – really just chump change?

Matt Barber is director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action and associate dean with Liberty University School of Law. Barber also serves on the Board of Americans For Truth about Homosexuality, a group devoted to countering the nation’s “gay” lobby. (This information is provided for identification purposes only.)

McCain’s Human Rights Campaign 2006 Congressional Scorecard rating of 33 percent, though way too high from the perspective of most conservatives, is in stark contrast to Obama’s 89 out of 100 in the same HRC Scorecard. McCain voted against HRC on all but one key vote (he opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment), while Obama voted with HRC on all but one vote (he did not support a pro-homosexual immigration bill).

Here is another way to compare the two senators’ records: Human Rights Campaign’s analysis of Obama’s co-sponsorship of pro-homosexual legislation backed by HRC, versus the same analysis for McCain.)

The fact that McCain’s spokesman reports (below) that the senator was “proud” to receive the endorsement of the homosexual Log Cabin Republicans — a group that crusades for homosexual “marriage” and routinely demonizes Christian conservatives just as all the other “gay” activist groups do– will stick in the craw of pro-family Republicans.

We eagerly wait to see if McCain smartly makes a serious play for pro-family, conservative voters in the wake of California’s homosexual “marriage” ruling, or opts instead to try to split the middle of the GOP’s “big tent” — perhaps even making bolder pro-homosexual overtures to court “moderates.” — Peter LaBarbera

The following is excerpted from a Washington Blade report June 6 (emphasis added):

HRC Blasts McCain

HRC [Human Rights Campaign] on Tuesday released a compilation of Sen. John McCain’s statements and stances on gay issues. The five-page report called McCain an “opponent of equality” and “out of touch with the GLBT community.”

Lisa Schwartz, HRC’s legal director, said McCain as president would “act against the civil rights” that gay Americans seek, including “basic fairness” guarantees in the workplace.

“John McCain opposed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act,” she said. “He opposes protections for GLBT people so that they can go to work and lead the productive lives that they can and deserve to.”

Schwartz said McCain also opposes hate crimes legislation that is supported by an “overwhelming bulk” of Americans, plus many chiefs of police and state attorneys general.

“John McCain has had three opportunities to vote for hate crimes legislation that would protect people on the basis of race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity and disability,” she said. “And all three times, he’s voted against this legislation.”

Schwartz said McCain exhibits a “backward looking way of thinking that doesn’t reflect what most Americans believe about” these issues.

The report does not assign McCain a score. He received 33 of 100 on HRC’s most recent congressional scorecard. Obama scored 89 of 100.

Brian Rogers, a McCain campaign spokesperson, said in a statement to the Blade that McCain would continue to seek support from all Americans.

“Sen. McCain is seeking support from all Americans this November, based on his vision for moving America forward and his long record of treating people with respect and dignity,” Rogers said. “He was proud to receive an endorsement from the Log Cabin Republicans in his 2004 re-election campaign, and we’re confident he’ll win strong support this fall.”

Log Cabin has not yet announced whether it will endorse McCain.