Does renegade, pro-homosexual Illinois Republican politician have a conflict of interest?

“Do you agree that [your constituents] have a right to know if there is a special interest in your life that affects your voting record? From an integrity standpoint, I think the axiom is true: honesty is the best policy.” — Peter LaBarbera to then-St. Sen. Dan Rutherford (Republican-Pontiac, IL), 11/18/2004                                                    

                                                    *       *       *

IL GOP gubernatorial candidate and Illinois Treasurer Dan Rutherford–widely rumored to be homosexual by activists in the GOP–cast two key votes as State Senator for pro-homosexual legislation. Rutherford is now being sued for sexual harassment by a male aide who says he was groped by the politician.

Homosexual newspaper Windy City Times to Dan Rutherford: “Is the Republican Party changing? Should it?”
Rutherford: “I think the party should change. I think the party should evolve. I think it’s going to take people like myself to help the party evolve. When I voted for the [pro-homosexual/pro-transgender] human rights bill in the early 90s, there was only a few of us. And when we moved forward to eventually pass it, there was more of us. And as we moved into consideration of the civil unions bill, there were some of us.

“Equality Illinois [the state’s leading homosexual activist group] was one of the hosts at the Republican National Convention for one of the receptions.”  — WCT interview with Rutherford, 8-6-13

_________________________________

Dear AFTAH Readers,

With reports that Illinois GOP gubernatorial candidate and Illinois Treasurer Dan Rutherford is being sued for sexual harassment by a male aide, I thought it important to reprint the two articles below–which originally appeared on the Illinois Family Institute (IFI) website in 2005–and which I wrote as then-Executive Director of IFI. The article (like many other older pieces) fell off the current IFI website following a overhaul of the site, and currently is not on the IFI site.

Since these articles were written, then-State Sen. Rutherford, having already helped the Democrats pass a homosexual “nondiscrimination” bill, went on to cast a second key Republican vote for a bill legalizing homosexual “civil unions.” The latter was a precursor to legalized homosexual “marriage” in the Land of Lincoln (the state “gay marriage” law takes effect June 1, 2014). Rutherford, who went on to become Illinois State Treasurer in 2011, never answered this writer’s query about alleged homosexuality–something which most men, especially those falsely accused like myself, find very easy to do. But he has offered curt and carefully-worded denials to others about being homosexual. This includes responding “No” to an oddly-worded “non-question” alluding to his alleged “gayness” in an interview with conservative Illinois Review editor Fran Eaton. (I’m afraid Eaton’s overly deferential, walking-on-eggshells approach–Rutherford answered “No” to “The Question” without her defining it–revealed more about the uncomfortableness surrounding homosexuality than it did about Rutherford’s past or present sexual lifestyle.)

Most recently in an interview last August with the Chicago homosexual newspaper, Windy City Times, Rutherford had this exchange with a reporter:

WCT: Your support for the LGBT has put you in the spotlight. Conservative bloggers have speculated you are gay. How do you define your sexual orientation?

Dan Rutherford: I’m not gay.

To which Chicago homosexual activist Robert Castillo responded: “Thanks for asking if he’s gay. You should have also asked if he is bisexual.”

Note that on every occasion of Rutherford being “questioned” about homosexuality, there are no follow-up questions (e.g., have you ever been in a homosexual relationship?)–and no probing into the meaning of words. (Many men who engage(d) in homosexual or bisexual behavior do not claim to be “gay”; there is even a term for it: men on the “down low.”) Also note that Rutherford’s continued advocacy of homosexuality in the Republican Party sets him apart from a person who may have engaged in homosexual behavior in the past but abandoned it–i.e., a repentant or recovered former homosexual. (Christians believe in the power of God through Christ to help people overcome that behaviorial sin pattern.)

On the conservative side, activists like Republican Chicago attorney and Republican News Watch founder Doug Ibendahl have long maintained that whether Rutherford ever admits it publicly or not, he is “gay.”

Encounter with Rutherford’s “partner”

Of course, there is the very real possibility that Rutherford–a politician, after all–is lying and dissembling about his aberrant sexual past and/or present so as not to hurt his prospects running in a Republican primary for governor.

A couple of years ago–long after my attempt at IFI to get Rutherford to clarify his sexuality–I had an interesting discussion with a veteran Illinois Republican activist, who told of meeting Rutherford “and his [male] partner” a number of years ago while travelling abroad. The man who accompanied Rutherford was clearly his partner, the activist said matter-of-factly. The activist source had no special animus toward Rutherford and worked with him as a GOP supporter, as with other ILGOP leaders.

Why should we care?

Why is any of this important? Because the people have a right to know if their public servant has a conflict of interest–and because honesty, morality and integrity matter. If Dan Rutherford has practiced a homosexual lifestyle–while advancing “gay” public policy goals in his role as a legislator (in defiance of the ILGOP and national Republican Party Platforms), it says something about his character. (As you can see, I am not a liberal.) And if he then lied and continues to lie or mislead about the matter, it says even more about his character.

Judge Vaughn Walker had “personal bias”; his “outrageous decision must be vacated”

Admitted homosexual Judge Vaughn Walker

By J. Matt Barber

Proposition 8 is an amendment to California’s State Constitution. It was passed by a comfortable margin via ballot initiative in 2008. Prop 8 maintained the age-old definition of marriage in the Golden State as requiring binary male-female compatibility. It remains tied-up in Federal Court today.  

Back in February of 2010 it became rumored that retired Federal Judge Vaughn Walker – who presided over the case at the District level – was a practitioner of the homosexual lifestyle. It was further reported that he had a longtime male lover. Judge Walker refused to confirm or deny the rumors. At the time I was one of the few people to publicly call for his recusal. It’s inexplicable that attorneys defending Prop 8 didn’t make such a motion.

With Judge Walker’s recent admission that he does in fact practice homosexuality, the case for recusal has been proven. His ruling on the Prop 8 case should be immediately vacated as he possessed both an incontrovertible and disqualifying conflict of interest.

Ex-RNC chief says he “beat back” Republican efforts against homosexual “marriage”

Ken Mehlman

TAKE ACTION: If you are a Republican, call or write the RNC (info@gop.com or call 202-863-8500) and tell them that you oppose the promotion of homosexuality and that you will not give to the party if it continues to do so. If you are a Democrat, urge your party here and encourage your representatives to stop supporting President Obama’s agenda of homosexualizing the U.S. miliary and overturning the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

By Peter LaBarbera

The Republican Party has a big and growing  “gay” problem. It is slowly going pro-homosexual even as GOP leaders continue to advertise theirs as the party of “family values.” Just one more reason why so many grassroots conservatives who regularly vote Republican call the GOP “The Stupid Party.”

The latest GOP hypocrisy: Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Michael Steele’s congratulatory words for former RNC chief Ken Mehlman, who has confirmed longstanding rumors that he (Mehlman) is a practicing homosexual.

The Washington Post reports that Steele said this about Mehlman’s “coming out”:

‘I am happy for Ken,’ Steele said. ‘His announcement, often a very difficult decision which is only compounded when done on the public stage, reaffirms for me why we are friends and why I respect him personally and professionally.'”

RNC Chairman Michael Steele

Why couldn’t Mr. Steele just have kept quiet about this tragic revelation by which another sexually confused man seeks to rationalize his misbehavior (sin) by declaring homosexuality part of his inherent being? Nope, instead, like a three-year-old boy approaching a puddle, Steele just had to step in it. Pro-family writer Laurie Higgins of Illinois Family Institute observed:

So, Steele is “happy” that Mehlman is homosexual and/or happy that he is public about it? Why would he be happy for a friend embracing immoral and dangerous practices or for a friend being public about his embrace of immorality? And why does he respect him for his “difficult” decision to announce his immorality publicly? What fecklessness or cowardice Steele’s comment demonstrates. And this from the leader of the Republican Party…

Now let’s examine whether Mehlman deserves our respect, per Steele’s comments. In a piece highly sympathetic to the former RNC boss (the media largely view homosexual identification as a good thing detached from moral considerations), Atlantic Monthly reports:

Privately, in off-the-record conversations with this reporter over the years, Mehlman voiced support for civil unions and told of how, in private discussions with senior Republican officials, he beat back efforts to attack same-sex marriage. He insisted, too, that President Bush “was no homophobe.”

So, we learn that Mehlman used his tremendous influence within the Republican Party to undermine the GOP’s clear platform language in support of preserving traditional marriage. All the while rank-and-file Republican Joe’s and Jane’s were assuming that the RNC leader was standing up for marriage between a man and a woman. Mr. Mehlman has just proved: 1) why homosexual activism should be kept out of the Republican Party, since it undermines core conservative values supported overwhelmingly by the GOP grassroots; and 2) why secret homosexuals working within the GOP against the Republican platform should be exposed.

Atlantic Monthy — which calls Mehlman “the most powerful Republican in history to identify as gay” — tips its hat to homosexual “outing” activist Mike Rogers by pointing out that Rogers previously had sought to “out” Mehlman:

Mehlman, who has never married, long found his sexuality subject to rumor and innuendo. He was the subject of an outing campaign by gay rights activist Mike Rogers, starting when Mehlman was Bush’s campaign manager. Rogers’s crusades against closeted gay Republicans split the organized gay lobby in Washington but were undoubtedly effective: he drove several elected officials, including Virginia Rep. Ed Shrock, from office, pushed out a would-be presidential campaign manager for George Allen well before Allen was set to run, slung rumors about Sen. Larry Craig’s sexual orientation well before Craig’s incident in a Minneapolis airport bathroom, and even managed to make homosexuality a wedge issue within the party’s activist circles.

Indeed, the former Republican chief is just one of several political VIPs whose homosexuality Rogers correctly exposed — giving added credence to Rogers’ accusations against his latest target, Illinois Republican and U.S. Senate hopeful Rep. Mark Kirk. Here is a piece in Chicago’s HillBuzz blog — run by homosexuals — that claims that both Kirk and Illinois Rep. Aaron Schock (R-Peoria) are homosexuals. (Both Kirk and Schock have denied that they are homosexuals.)

Homosexuals have the complete freedom to compete in the battle for control of the Republican Party, but they shouldn’t do so in secret. Republicans deserved a party chairman who was really working to defend tradtional marriage, not a fake conservative like Mehlman who, as a covert “gay” activist, was actually working to undermine it. Too bad Steele couldn’t find words to address that aspect of the Mehlman story instead of acting like the embrace of homosexuality is a swell thing.

For his part, Mehlman plans to continue advocating for the acceptance of homosexuality in GOP circles — and even orchestrated his public “coming out” to advance the cause of homosexual “marriage”:

Once he realized that the news would probably leak, he assembled a team of former advisers to help him figure out the best way to harness the publicity generated by the disclosure for the cause of marriage rights.

“What I will try to do is to persuade people, when I have conversations with them, that it is consistent with our party’s philosophy, whether it’s the principle of individual freedom, or limited government, or encouraging adults who love each other and who want to make a lifelong committment to each other to get married,” Mehlman told Atlantic Monthly. “I hope that we, as a party, would welcome gay and lesbian supporters. I also think there needs to be, in the gay community, robust and bipartisan support [for] marriage rights.”

Sadly — just as Mehlman seems to ignore the loss of “individual freedom” that comes with State-enforced pro-homosexual laws — many libertarians within the Party will ally with Mehlman in attempting to redefine the Republican brand to accommodate a post-Christian sexual ethos and homosexual activism in the name of “liberty.”

Needless to say, Atlantic Monthly reporter Marc Ambinder does not dwell on how GOP conservatives will react to Mehlman’s behind-the-scenes treachery on same-sex “marriage,” but rather focuses on how Mehlman’s “outing” and past actions will be judged by homosexual advocates.

“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.

Solicitor General Elena Kagan

Here’s another terrific piece by our friend (and AFTAH Board Member) Matt Barber. We should note that (Solicitor General) Elena Kagan’s reported zealousness for the homosexual activist cause does not depend on her being a lesbian. In fact, these days some of the most vocal pro-homosexual activists are “straight” (e.g., actress Judith Light). Ideological bias is the most important factor in evaluating Kagan’s suitability for the nation’s highest court, but clearly a newly seated, suddenly “out of the closet” Justice Kagan–or even a Justice Kagan whose lesbianism is slowly revealed over a period of years–could have extraordinary sway in a “same-sex marriage” case or other homosexuality-related questions before the Court.

For that matter, an officially “closeted” Justice Kagan whose homosexuality nevertheless becomes an open secret on the Supreme Court (wink, wink) could also win sympathy among fellow justices and thus skew decisions in favor of “gay” activism. So Ms. Kagan herself, and not her surrogates, needs to speak directly to this issue. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

[See AFTAH news release: “If Elena Kagan Is a Lesbian, She Should Say So because Public Has a Right to Know.”]

_________________________________________

Kagan a Lesbian? Why It Matters

Posted: May 20, 2010 by WorldNetDaily

By J. Matt Barber

I don’t see how liberal media-types can write, what with those uncalloused, milky-soft little digits all bundled in bulky kid gloves and all. Oh, when the target of their “reporting” is a conservative politico, or even Tea Party Joe, off come the gloves. But when it’s one of their own––when circumstances require that a fellow liberal undergo a modicum of journalistic scrutiny––its simpatico most sublime. Out with the inquiry; in with the Huggies and tushie powder.

Media, here’s your question: “Solicitor Kagan, do you identify as a lesbian?” Ms. Kagan, your answer is simpler still: “Yes” or “no.”

Pipe down, lefties. Yes, it is relevant. Most liberals would disagree, but despite “progressive” protestations to the contrary, character does, in fact, matter. A majority of Americans still consider sexual morality––or a lack thereof––a pertinent factor in contemplating one’s fitness for any public service––chiefly, perhaps, a lifetime appointment to our most supreme earthly court.

Homosexual takes credit for switching Rep. David Dreier’s vote on ENDA

Homosexual "outing" activist Mike Rogers takes credit for Rep. David Dreier's and Rep. Jim McCrery's pro-homosexual voting switch on ENDA in 2007.

“Gay” “outing” activist Mike Rogers (right) attempts to expose the secret homosexuality of politicians who vote against the homosexual activist agenda. Below he responds to my call for potential Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, Rep. David Dreier (R-CA), Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC) and Florida Gov. Charlie Crist to answer the question of whether they practice (or have practiced) homosexual behavior.

Rogers’ questions, though perverse, are fair, I suppose, since AFTAH is demanding transparency and honesty from others in the public arena who will influence public policy on the homosexual issue. But once again I disappoint our many homosexual critics because I do not have — and never had — a homosexual problem.

Shocking claim: As you can read HERE on my political site, Rogers takes credit for Rep. Dreier  (and Rep. Jim  McCrery, R-La.) switching in 2007 to support ENDA, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would federalize employment “rights” based on homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality. If his report is even close to the truth, then it constitutes further evidence of the dangers of hidden homosexuality in the Republican Party.

We’ll see if the GOP leadership — which still can’t say no to homosexual activist “Republicans” — has learned anything from the Mark Foley scandal. (Dreier’s staff hung up on two calls by this writer inquiring about the Congressman’s sexual preference.)

My response follows Rogers’ very “queer” query after the jump. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

Americans For Truth News Release, May 10, 2010

Contact: Peter LaBarbera: 630-717-7631; americansfortruth@comcast.net

____________________________________

Solicitor General Elena Kagan

CHICAGO, Ill. — In the wake of AP’s report that Solicitor General Elena Kagan is President Obama’s choice to fill the Supreme Court vacancy, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) reiterates its call for Kagan to answer the question: ‘Are (or were) you a practicing homosexual?’

According to some reports it is an open secret that Kagan is a practicing lesbian — to which AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera responds:

“If Kagan is practicing immoral sexual behavior, it reflects on her character as a judicial nominee and her personal bias as potentially one of the most important public officials in America. The popular mantra — even among conservatives — is that Kagan’s sexuality is ‘irrelevant.’ But a Justice Kagan would help decide some critically important constitutional issues dealing with: homosexual ‘marriage’ as a supposed civil right; religious liberty and freedom of conscience; and the First Amendment as applied to citizens’ right to oppose homosexuality. So it certainly matters if she, as a lifetime judge, could emerge as a crusading (openly) ‘gay’ advocate on the court.

“Kagan has a strong pro-homosexual record, including, as Harvard dean, fighting to keep military recruiters off the campus because the military bars homosexuals. Americans certainly have a right to know if her activism is driven by deeply personal motivations that could undermine her fairness as a judge.”

“Besides, in an era of ubiquitous pro-gay messages and pop culture celebration of homosexuality, it’s ridiculous that Americans should be left guessing as to whether a Supreme Court nominee has a special, personal interest in homosexuality.

Read the rest of this article »

Elena Kagan

Folks, in an era of ubiquitous pro-“gay” messages and pop culture celebration of homosexuality, it is ridiculous that citizens and constituents should be left guessing as to whether a judicial nominee or politician has a special interest in homosexuality. Speculation is rife over whether potential Supreme Court nominee and Solicitor General Elena Kagan is a practicing lesbian. Kagan has a radical pro-homosexual record, including, during her tenure as Harvard law school dean, fighting to keep military recruiters off campus because the military bans open homosexuals.

Given the important issues dealing with homosexuality and opposition to it that could come before the court, Kagan should answer the question of whether she has a special, personal interest in lesbianism. In the same way, any politician — especially those representing more conservative areas — should come clean on the homosexuality question, especially if it is an “open secret” or becomes the subject of wide discussion. Just as a “conservative” politician’s constituents have a right to know whether he is secretly a skirt-chaser, they have a right to know if he is practicing immoral homosexual behavior.

Our appeal to Ms. Kagan and all hiding-in-the-closet pols: answer the question — “Are you a practicing homosexual or do you consider yourself homosexual (gay)? — and move on. Homosexuals’ privacy interests do not outweigh the public’s right to know about potential conflicts-of-interest in the lives of their representatives and judges. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

American Family Association’s “One News Now” reports:

————————————————

What the people don’t know could hurt them

By Charlie Butts – OneNewsNow – 4/28/2010

The president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) addresses whether a candidate for public office, including the Supreme Court, should declare their sexual preference or leanings.

LaBarbera has raised the question because of hints in the press that some of the possible picks for a Supreme Court vacancy are either homosexual or heavily favor special rights for homosexuals.