Mark Kirk

As you can imagine, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality head Peter LaBarbera is none too happy with TIME’s cover story on the success of marriage equality advocates, telling the American Family Association’s news service yesterday that the magazine is “publishing indecent photos” and “promoting perversion.” After lamenting that children might see the magazine covers of same-sex couples kissing, he went on to blast his home state senator Mark Kirk (R-IL) for “pushing homosexuality in the Republican Party” by endorsing marriage equality.

But Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) is "upset" by how the magazine is jumping the gun.

"This is shocking that TIME magazine would do this -- basically publishing indecent photos, promoting perversion on the cover of their magazine, where on racks across the country children can see this," he laments. "This is an in-your-face promotion of homosexual immorality, and I'm very upset that they would go to this length."

And LaBarbera is especially dismayed that the order to print the photos came from the top.

"The managing editor of TIME, Richard Stengel, said the images published by TIME were -- quote -- 'beautiful and symbolized the love that is at the heart of the idea of marriage' -- unquote," the AFTAH president reports. "How can you be more confused? Two people of the same sex kissing symbolizes the love of marriage?" Marriage has historically been between a man and a woman, and he asserts that media moguls cannot change that.

LaBarbera adds that the media and the far left are confused, and he submits that the article and cover photos are a sellout to the homosexual lobby, as corporate America supports TIME through its advertising dollars.

…

"He was always liberal on social issues, and he was a favorite of the so-called moderates in the Republican Party," the AFTAH president notes. "But I certainly didn't expect that he would capitulate this fast. This very simplistic explanation by Senator Kirk fits a man who really ... never treated the social issues seriously."

While Kirk's decision is not a surprise, LaBarbera points out that it will still benefit the pro-homosexual forces.

"The sad thing about this is it gives fuel to the left's 'inevitability' claim," he offers. "The left and the media are promoting homosexual marriage like never before -- they're saying it's unstoppable; it's inevitable. Of course that's not true; nothing's inevitable. But they're really pushing homosexuality in the Republican Party. Senator Kirk's defection on this issue only helps the left."

Two separate reports have revealed the flood of corporate dollars buttressing the Republican Party’s push to retake the House and Senate this November. Big business, whether rewarding Republican endeavors to block progressive legislation such as Wall Street reform or simply expecting a GOP wave, has ramped up efforts to support Republican politicians and expenditure committees.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, “in both the first and second quarters of this year, the broad finance, insurance and real estate sector has favored Republican candidates and committees in its political giving.” Their study indicates “an increased frustration with congressional Democrats by Wall Street interests, many of which are still smarting from passage of federal financial reforms they consider onerous.” Of the 25 leading recipients of money from the three industries, 17 were Republican candidates, and the top 5 includes: “Ohio’s Rob Portman ($820,000); Pennsylvania’s Pat Toomey ($728,000); California’s Carly Fiorina ($650,000); Illinois’ Mark Kirk ($618,000) and Florida’s Marco Rubio ($613,000).”

Stewart Powell and Yang Wang in the Houston Chronicle describe the intense efforts of the National Republican Senatorial Committee to recruit donors from the corporate world. Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the head of the NRSC, “has aggressively courted business executives who are disappointed in Obama’s performance and unhappy with the Democratic Congress' legislative agenda.” The NRSC has raked in over $4.4 million from interests related to the security and investment industries, and Goldman Sachs alone “boosted donations to the NRSC by almost 200 percent.”  And with the increasing number of "Super PACs" after Citizens United, corporations have more opportunities than ever to back their preferred candidates.

Republicans in Congress are reaping the benefits of their unfailing defense of corporate interests, as seen when GOP leaders even went out of their way to protect British Petroleum after the Gulf oil spill. With Wall Street’s unfettered access to John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, the prospect of Republican majorities is motivating more and more giving to the Republican cause.

• Big donors are not happy with RNC Chair Michael Steele and are withholding donations, to which he defiantly replies "fire me or shut up."
• According to WND, Rep. Nathan Deal, R-Ga., is a Birther and "has written to President Obama asking him to prove his eligibility to hold the office of U.S. president."
• The World Congress of Families says it is standing Don Schmierer, who was one of three Americans mentioned in the recent New York Times article against the anti-gay legislation in Uganda.
• The Susan B. Anthony List, Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America, Eagle Forum and others are planning a press tour to pressure House Democrats to kill healthcare reform over the issue of abortion.
• Finally, Rep. Mark Kirk insists that he is not gay.

I've tried to ignore the latest nonsense from Senate candidate Andy Martin and his allegations that Rep. Mark Kirk is gay because, frankly, Martin is a certified nut. 

If I posted on every crazy thing Martin said, this blog would consist of nothing else ... like his claims that Max Baucus is a "habitual sex offender" or that Wikipedia "is a tax-exempt protosocialist scam that seeks to harass Republicans, conservatives and Obama opponents."

But Peter LaBabera doesn't think that Martin is a loon, which is why Martin participated in the Americans for Truth fundraising banquet earlier this year:

David Smith, Executive Director of the Illinois Family Institute, accepted an award on behalf of Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman of the American Family Association (AFA) and American Family Radio. [Wildmon, who is recovering from encephalitis, was the recipient of AFTAH's first annual American Truth Teller Award; his son, AFA President Tim Wildmon, thanked Americans For Truth with a video message played at the banquet.]

Though the AFTAH banquet was not a political event, two candidates seeking statewide office were present. Dan Proft, who is running for Governor in the GOP primary and Andy Martin, who is seeking the Republican Party nomination in the U.S. Senate race, joined pro-family supporters at the AFTAH fundraiser.

So that is why it comes as no surprise that LaBarbera seems to think Martin's claims and antics are perfectly acceptable, even though he doesn't mention him by name:

Do voters have a right to know that their Congressman — especially one that bills himself as “pro-family” — is having adulterous affairs with women? Yes. Do the same voters have a right to know if their Congressman is himself a homosexual — especially since he will likely be voting on “gay”-related legislation predicated on the (false) assumption that homosexuality is a “civil rights” criterion? You bet they do.

In this post-Will & Grace age in which vulgar sodomy jokes are aired uncensored on primetime TV, it is unfair, hypocritical and simply odd to enable homosexual candidates to hide their pet sexual sin behind the “gay” “closet” — or to demand that any questions on the topic are inappropriate. I write this as one who hoped for the defeat of Republican “pro-family” politicians who were exposed as philanderers.

So our question to any candidate around which “gay” rumors are swirling is this:

Are you a homosexual — i.e., or have you practiced homosexual behavior or been in “gay” relationships?

There is no easy way to ask this awkward question, but it is as relevant as asking a candidate rumored to be a cad if he has been faithful to his wife. From a Christian perspective, sexual sin is sexual sin, and the politics of homosexuality and “outing” should not be dictated by the needs and wants of pro-homosexuality advocates or the GLBT Lobby.

The problems and ethical implications of secretly “gay” politicians are also exacerbated by the policy of homosexual activist “outers” who specialize in exposing the homosexuality on only the candidates they regard as hypocritical (read: anti-homosexual-agenda) on homosexual issues. This creates an incentive for covertly homosexual pols to vote pro-”gay” on GLBT legislation because that will lessen the likelihood of an embarrasing [sic] “outing” episode.

This is another reason why voters deserve to know if their representative or potential representative has a conflict of interest on homosexuality issues.

If you are a Republican and you think it’s unfair for homsoexual politicans [sic] to have their homosexuality revealed, here’s three words for you: Mark Foley scandal. As one who monitors the “gay” press, I knew about Foley’s homosexuality years before the page scandal happened — and had GOP leaders not swept that under the rug, perhaps the whole sordid Foley episode could have been avoided, and all its bad consequences for the Republican Party in the 2006 elections.

Any candidate hit with the “gay” question can simply answer my question above. We hope they wouldn’t lie about it, but that seems to have happened with one Republican candidate in Illinois who I sought answers from on the homosexual issue.