Rep. Mark Kirk Outed by Gay Activist — Why AFTAH Asks the ‘H Question’

“And in DC, Kirk wasn’t all THAT closeted. You see Mark Kirk told me he was gay.”

*          *          *

“In an effort to move the base in the Illinois Senate race, Kirk decided to tack right and that means throwing the gays (like him) under the bus. And once he voted that way [against the repeal of the ban on homosexuals-in-the-military], the phone began to ring. Not one or two, or three but 5 separate individuals contacted me about the now divorced Mr. Kirk.” — Homosexual “outing” activist Michael Rogers, “Truth or Consequences”

Homosexual blogger Mike Rogers "outed" Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Illinois; pictured above) as a homosexual after Kirk voted against the repeal of the ban on homosexuals in the military. Rogers says that Kirk once told him he was "gay."

By Peter LaBarbera

The following is a post by homosexual “outing” activist Michael Rogers, reprinted from his “Blogactive” website. (It was picked by the left-wing Huffington Post.) Note Rogers’ pro-“gay” standard for political “outing” (publicizing a person’s alleged homosexuality): as long as the presumably homosexual legislator helps the “gay” activist movement, he is left alone. But when he — like Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) — votes the “wrong” way on a high-profile piece of legislation important to the Homosexual Lobby,well, as Rogers puts it, “the gig is up.” (Note below that Kirk has very high pro-gay scorecard ratings for a Republican, as measured by the nation’s leading homosexual organization.)

In this case, Kirk voted AGAINST the repeal of the military’s ban on homosexuals, thus igniting a new round of online homosexual wrath that could affect his bid to win the U.S. Senate seat once held by Barack Obama. (In the GOP Illinois Senate primary, long-shot candidate Andy Martin ran radio ads statewide targeting Kirk for his alleged homosexuality.)

I have written before about Rogers, who has taken “outing” activism to a new level. Note how Rogers and his followers take credit for the pro-ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act) vote switch by “conservative” Republican Rep. David Dreier (CA). (Dreier’s alleged homosexuality was reported by the liberal alternative press–i.e., beyond just the gay press; two Dreier staffers separately hung up on this writer inquiring about his sexual preference, as one reportedly did to this L.A. Weekly reporter coming at the issue from an opposite perspective.)

Folks, this is serious business: if secretly homosexual politicians are subject to pro-“gay”-agenda voting pressure by the likes of Rogers, their constituents (and the wider public) certainly have a right to know — just as they have the right to know if a “pro-family” legislator is mocking those values through the act of adultery. This is why Americans For Truth refuses to play the “outing game” by “gay”/liberal activist rules, which are mainly designed to embarrass hypocritical, conservative Republicans.

Here is the liberal rationale for outing as provided by L.A. Weekly writer Doug Ireland (emphasis his):

I have always taken the view that outing a gay person should be approached with caution, and that in doing so one should strictly adhere to the Barney Frank Rule. As articulated by the openly gay Massachusetts congressman during another anti-gay GOP witch-hunt over a decade ago, when Frank threatened to out a number of gay-baiting Republican fellow congressmen, the rule insists that outing is only acceptable when a person uses their power or notoriety to hurt gay people.

This homosexuality-affirming rationale enjoys increasing though not yet widespread respect in the “mainstream” media, which often shills for the GLBT agenda. To the contrary, AFTAH supports exposing (“outing”) covert homosexuals who either:

1. are using their position of power to advance the pro-homosexuality agenda —  a mission more effectively accomplished by stealth because it masks the obvious conflict-of-interest that being open about their homosexuality would present (CNN reporter Anderson Cooper, who is reported to be homosexual by OUT magazine and other “gay” media, would fall into this category); or
2. threaten to undermine pro-family public policy goals through being targeted by the brand of “queer extortion” employed by Rogers (e.g., case of Rep. David Dreier); or
3. are “living a lie” by practicing behavior that flouts either the traditional values of their own constituents or the pro-family platform that the politician publicly espouses. (Note the similarity of this criterion to exposing heterosexual philandering pols who are publicly pro-family.)

When — as in years preceding the Mark Foley scandal — talk of the VIP’s reported homosexuality becomes so widespread that it demands clarification, AFTAH and this writer ask politicians, potential judges and VIP media members the “Homosexual Question.” Deeply-held private biases affect public policy, so the voting public has a right to know those biases, especially when they are the target of hard-ball pressure politics. Of course, Michael Rogers — who queried this writer on the same question — comes at it from the opposite perspective. The following is reprinted from Rogers’ “Blogactive” website:

Truth or Consequences

Blogactive, by Michael Rogers, June 1, 2010

If you’ve been around long enough, you’ll remember the original television game show Truth or Consequences. (For those around longer, it was preceded by a radio show of the same name and format.) It was rather simple, answer a question correctly or “suffer” the consequences. In this case, consequence meant the performance of “usually a zany and embarrassing stunt.” I use the term “suffer” lightly, as most contestants tried to give the wrong answer just so they could perform the assigned punishment activity.

The same game exists in politics. In DC, the format is a bit different. Instead of a handful of players each week, this version has 535 contestants: 435 in the House, the remainder in the Senate. And, sometimes, you have to wonder if these guys are purposefully getting the answer wrong just so they get to perform the stunt. In this case the punishment is unwanted and is usually an appearance before a camera, humiliation of his wife, and blaming the whole damned thing on the environment in DC while invoking god. Wouldn’t it have been simple enough To Tell the Truth? (Oh, wait, that’s a different game show.)

In many cases, players decide not to play the Capitol’s version of the game, and that’s just fine. If someone doesn’t get up and get the first part wrong, they never face part 2.

Sometimes it’s not so simple.

Why report on Mark Kirk (R-IL)? Why now?

Until now, Mark Kirk elected not to play the typical Washington game. Instead of supporting his party’s dismal record on gay rights, Kirk received Human Rights Campaign ratings of 67% in 2002, 88% in 2004, 76% in 2006 and 85% in 2008. That’s more impressive than a lot of Democrats. I even let Kirk slide by when he didn’t co-sponsor earlier legislation relating to the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. My thoughts then were that he wasn’t THAT bad on gay stuff and that the bill was going nowhere anyway.

Times have changed. Now, for the first time in his congressional career, Mark Kirk really had the chance to stand up and do what is right with the power of a vote. When I heard that five GOPers voted to lift the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell ban I instinctively thought Kirk would be one of them. What a disappointment when he wasn’t. The five were: Judy Biggert (R-IL), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Ron Paul (R-TX), Joseph Cao (R-LA), and Charles Djou, (R-HI).

“Where was Mark Kirk?” I wondered. I left a messages at both the campaign and DC offices of the Representative who wants to be Senator. No one responded. Shocker.

In an effort to move the base in the Illinois Senate race, Kirk decided to tack right and that means throwing the gays (like him) under the bus. And once he voted that way, the phone began to ring. Not one or two, or three but 5 separate individuals contacted me about the now divorced Mr. Kirk. (Mr. and Mrs. Kirk were married from 2001 to 2009, the marriage produced no children.)

Within hours of the DADT repeal vote I was contacted by two people who knew Kirk from his college days.

“In law school in DC everyone knew Mark was gay,” the first source told me. I explained that the information was intriguing, it would not be enough to go on. He continued, “But I had sex with him a number of times.” Well, now we’re onto something I thought. “Could someone verify for me that you knew Kirk and went to school with him?” I asked. “Yes” was the swift reply. “Could you recall personal details about Kirk that others may not know?” “Yes,” he said.

And he did.

The next source claimed to have gone to undergraduate school with Kirk. I asked for proof that he and Kirk were in school together and once that was shared with me, I met with the source. The source introduced me to a man who had also been friends with Kirk in college. They both shared with me their interactions with Kirk, including one sexual in nature. The source who claimed to have sex with Kirk described personal details about the House, um, er, “member.” The description was the same as the first source.

And in DC, Kirk wasn’t all THAT closeted. You see Mark Kirk told me he was gay. Before I had BlogActive, I had a life in Washington. As a fundraiser I raised major gifts from $5,000 to over $1,000,000… You don’t do that kind of work at a keyboard, you do it at events attended by people with money. The movers and shakers and their friends.

It was early 2004 when I was at a social gathering on Capitol Hill. I’m guessing there were 35-40 people present, including the guy who brought me as his guest. While the party was no means a “gay” party, I’d guess that of the men at least 75% were overtly gay. The others present were either straight men or their women friends.

It was at that party that I met Mark Kirk. I was introduced to him by the person I came with and at the time did not realize he was a member of the House. As my friend walked away, Kirk asked me if the man who introduced us was “single or attached.” When I said that he had a partner, Kirk replied disappointingly, “oh, well.” At the end of that interaction I walked away and didn’t think much of it at the time.

Then Kirk became a hypocrite. Kirk voted against repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, despite his being a closeted gay man in the military. As a Commander in the Navy Reserves Kirk has voted to keep a policy that if he were investigated under he would be tossed.

Recently we learned that it’s not just his being a closeted gay man that Kirk lies about; he has a habit of making up awards supposedly given to him by the Navy.

Nice try, Mark. The gig is up.

__________________________________

Related articles:

“NBC: The guy trying to out Mark Kirk also outed Mark Foley, Larry Craig” (Republican News Watch)

“Gay community pushes Mark Kirk out of the closet” (Republican News Watch)

“Mark Kirk outed by filmmaker Mike Rogers — just as we told you this would happen. Waiting for response from Fran Eaton and Illinois Review.” (HillBuzz blog)